Monday, October 29, 2001

Speaker: The Honourable Peter
Milliken

The House met at 11 a.m.

Prayers

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Private Members' Business]

* * *

(1100)

[English]

Marriage Capacity Act

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas,
NDP)
moved that Bill C-264,
an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act (marriage between persons
of the same sex), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.

He said: Mr. Speaker, today is an historic day for the
gay and lesbian community in Canada. It is the first time in Canadian history
that legislation is being debated that would allow gay or lesbian couples to
legally marry in Canada.

I want to begin my comments this morning by thanking
some of my colleagues in the House for supporting this landmark bill. I want to
first thank my colleague, the member of parliament for Vancouver East, for
seconding the bill and for her long history of support for equality for gay and
lesbian people throughout Canada.

I also want to thank those members of the Liberal Party
who supported the bill: the member for Toronto Centre--Rosedale, the member for
St. Paul's and others. I hear some Liberal backbenchers heckling and indicating
they do not support the bill. I would ask that they at least show respect for
their own colleagues and for other members of the House. They may not accept
equality but surely they can accept the right of members of the House to debate
this important issue in an atmosphere of civility and dignity.

[Translation]

I would also like to thank the members of the Bloc
Quebecois who supported this important bill and especially the member for
Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, who cannot participate in the debate this morning but
who has, for a long time, been promoting justice and equality for gay and
lesbian communities in Canada. I also thank the member for Joliette, who will
participate in the debate and support the bill.

(1105)

[English]

I would also like to extend my appreciation to the
member for Kings--Hants from the Progressive Conservative Democratic Coalition
for his support for the principle of this important legislation.

It is clear that the Canadian public is well ahead of
political leaders and of the government when it comes to this important issue
of the basic right of equality of gay and lesbian people who choose to marry to
be able to do so. The most recent public opinion poll showed that something
like two-thirds of Canadians across Canada in every region of Canada were
prepared to accept this equality. We are not talking about any kind of special
rights or privileges. What we are talking about are equal rights, equal rights
that are guaranteed to gay and lesbian people under section 15 of the charter
of rights and freedoms.

Under section 15 of our charter, which came into force
in April 1985, all Canadians are equal. With respect to gay and lesbian people,
the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that gay and lesbian people are included
under section 15 when they are involved in committed and loving
relationships.

We have certainly made significant progress on the
journey toward full equality both federally and at the provincial and
territorial level. Last year landmark legislation was passed in the House of
Commons, Bill C-23, legislation that extended a whole range of rights and
responsibilities to gay and lesbian people and couples.

However Bill C-23 fell short in the critical area of
recognition of the right to marry. In one of the final days of debate on the
bill, the Liberal Minister of Justice introduced an amendment that shamefully
explicitly excluded affirmation of the right of gay and lesbian people to
marry.

I am confident the courts will ultimately rule that
equality means equality and that we as gay and lesbian people should be
entitled to the equal right to marriage.

I also want to acknowledge the important work EGALE has
done on the issue of equality for gays and lesbians and on many other issues.
EGALE is a national organization that speaks out on behalf of gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgendered people across the country. It has been tireless in
its advocacy of equality and I salute the members of EGALE for continuing to
work hard on this issue.

Many individuals, couples and organizations across the
land have supported the right to full equality. I am proud as a New Democrat
that my party is the only national party with a clear policy that calls for
recognition of equality for gay and lesbian people in marriage and in all other
areas of society. I speak today on behalf of the members of my caucus and the
leader of my party, the member for Halifax, who has also, from the very
beginning of her career and days in politics, been a tireless advocate for
equality for gay and lesbian people.

A number of churches and religious leaders have also
been in the forefront of this struggle. I particularly want to acknowledge the
work done by Rev. Brent Hawkes of the Metropolitan Community Church who has
been promoting equality for many years. On January 14, 2001, Rev. Brent Hawkes,
the pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto, celebrated the
marriage between Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell, as well as the marriage of
Elaine Vautour and Anne Vautour.

As Rev. Brent Hawkes said:

We look forward to the day, when
Canada embraces the diversity of all people, and legally recognizes what God
already knows--that love has no bounds.

The bill itself is a very short bill. It is entitled
the Marriage Capacity Act and states that “a marriage between two persons is
not invalid by reason only that they are of the same sex”.

(1110)

I would note parenthetically that obviously all of the
existing barriers to marriage, for example, barriers to marriage between
relatives, or between brothers and sisters, remain in the existing legislation
under the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act. Nothing changes that at all. Those
barriers remain.

This would simply remove the common law barrier to same
sex marriage. I would like to emphasize that this barrier goes back to a
decision in the British courts from 1886 in a case called Hyde v Hyde. Those
were the days when marriage had a very different meaning. In fact those were
the days in which within the institution of marriage rape was legal and
violence was legal. A husband was allowed to beat his wife as long as the stick
that he used was no wider than the width of his thumb. Certainly a precedent
dating back to those days and that recognition of marriage is not one which
should be used to deny equality to gay and lesbian people today. It should
certainly not be used in that way.

Indeed there are challenges to that. As I said, there
is no statutory bar at the federal level. It is strictly judge made law and in
Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia there are currently cases proceeding in
the courts to challenge that legal barrier.

[Translation]

In Quebec, a gay couple launched a court challenge, and
we hope the two partners will win their case.

[English]

In Ontario the city of Toronto is supporting that legal
challenge and in British Columbia the former attorney general, Andrew Petter,
had the courage to speak out in support of the legal challenge as
well.

There has been one ruling to date specifically on these
challenges. It came in a British Columbia court decision by Mr. Justice Ian
Pitfield, and I must say that many of us were astonished at that decision
because it flies in the face of not only justice and reason but fairness. He
found that the constitution of Canada itself, in his words, expressed an
intention that discrimination would be permitted. This is an extraordinary
ruling and one that I am confident will be overturned by the courts when it
goes to the British Columbia Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Supreme
Court of Canada.

The bill would change the law to allow those gay and
lesbian people who choose to marry to do so. It would not in any way affect
religious marriage and it is important to underline that. It is strictly about
civil marriage. Those faiths that are prepared to celebrate and affirm the
marriages of gay and lesbian couples within their faith community would be
permitted to do so. Those not prepared to do so would not in any way be
required or forced to do so. Just as, for example, within some faiths there are
barriers to interfaith marriages today that are not legally challenged in any
way so too would that discretion still be there for religions not prepared to
recognize the equality of their gay and lesbian parishioners.

I might be asked, what difference does marriage make
and why do gay and lesbian people want the right, the choice, the option of
marriage? I think it is important to recognize that marriage is the most
prominent way today in which two persons' romantic love and commitment to each
other are recognized and affirmed. Excluding gay and lesbian people from the
institution of marriage sends a clear message that our relationships, the
relationships of same sex couples, are somehow not as worthy of recognition and
affirmation. On the other hand, including same sex marriages in civil marriage
would send a positive message to all Canadians, one that says that regardless
of whether someone loves a man or a woman that love will be valued, honoured,
affirmed and treated with equal dignity and respect.

I often have the privilege of speaking in schools in my
constituency and elsewhere. Kids like to talk about the lives of members of
parliament and they ask what kind of life I have, what the challenges are, what
I like about the job and what is difficult about the job. Sometimes kids will
ask if I am married. I tell them I am not married, that I have a partner whose
name is Max, we have been together for seven years and love one another very
much, we want to spend the rest of our lives together and that relationship is
very important to us and is the most important relationship in my life. Those
kids will often ask why I cannot get married or why I do not get married or if
I do not want to marry him. I tell them I do want to and I would like to have
that choice, but I do not have it because the laws of this country do not allow
me, as a gay man, that choice.

How would giving me and my partner Max that choice in
any way weaken heterosexual marriage? How would it in any way weaken the
strength, the love, the commitment of heterosexual partnerships? It would not
change that at all. Surely heterosexual marriage is not so fragile that
allowing gay and lesbian people to marry would cause it to come tumbling down
like a house of cards. Surely in this time of such pain, in the aftermath of
the horrors of September 11, any steps that we can take as a society to
strengthen the affirmation of love in our society in a positive way is
something we should be encouraging.

Marriage is about love and commitment. It is true that
some gay and lesbian couples would not want to get married if that choice were
available, just as some heterosexual couples choose to live common law, but
surely we should recognize the right of choice. Canada would not be the first
country to do so. The Netherlands moved earlier this year to fully recognize
marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

(1115)

I am confident that it will happen in Canada as well,
but why should gay and lesbian people be forced through the courts? Why should
we be wasting taxpayers' money to fight for this small but important step on
the road to full equality?

Sometimes it is said that we cannot allow gay and
lesbian people to marry because marriage is about children and procreation. The
best answer to that came in a very eloquent editorial in the Globe and
Mail just this month. It said:

The issue of children is a red
herring; many couples who are married do not procreate, many couples procreate
outside marriage and many gay couples raise children, adopted or conceived with
the egg or sperm of one partner. Expanding the tent would enable loving gays in
committed relationships to agree to the solemn obligations of the marriage
contract. And what are we talking of, if not respect for family
values?

That is what I want to appeal to today in closing,
those traditional family values. We as gay and lesbian people are families
also. The bill would allow the full and equal recognition of our families. I
call on all members of the House to support this important
legislation.

Mr. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-264 proposes certain amendments to
the Marriage Act to allow legal marriage for same sex couples. I will begin by
commending the member for Burnaby--Douglas in as strong and sincere terms as I
can for his tireless and principled work over many years for the equality of
gay and lesbian Canadians. All members of the House and all Canadians should
feel proud of his achievements and his determination.

At the outset I emphasize that the Government of Canada
takes seriously its obligations to ensure equal treatment of all its citizens
including gay and lesbian Canadians. It is because of this constitutional
obligation that the government moved last year to enact the Modernization of
Benefits and Obligations Act which provides equal treatment for common law same
sex partners by extending the same benefits and obligations under federal law
that are granted to common law opposite sex partners.

I am proud to say that not only does the Modernization
of Benefits and Obligations Act fully comply with our constitutional
obligations. It goes further than any other jurisdiction in Canada in ensuring
equal treatment for gay and lesbian Canadians. I am also proud to say that
Canada is in the forefront of the world in ensuring that gay and lesbian
couples are treated under the federal law with dignity and respect.

Bill C-264 proposes to fundamentally alter the legal
concept of marriage by legislatively overriding the common law and civil law
rule on legal capacity that a marriage is “the union of one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others”.

Canada is unique in the world for many reasons, not the
least of which is the fact that our laws are based on two of the great legal
traditions, the common law and the civil law. In both these traditions there is
a clarity as to the legal meaning of the term marriage which can be traced back
into history. Because of this Canada is not alone in its understanding of the
legal concept of marriage.

European countries that have provided a registration
system similar to marriage have deliberately chosen to maintain a clear
distinction in law between registration and marriage. In terms of the approach
taken by the House last year, a review of other countries shows that few have
enacted legislation designed to extend benefits and obligations to same sex
couples on the same basis as to opposite sex couples.

As mentioned previously, the Modernization of Benefits
and Obligations Act extends equal treatment to common law same sex couples and
common law opposite sex couples with respect to federal benefits and
obligations.

The act was a comprehensive piece of legislation. It
amended 68 federal statutes falling within the mandate of some 23 federal
departments and agencies. Some of the major federal statutes of general
application that were modernized by the act include the Canadian pension plan,
the Old Age Security Act, the Income Tax Act and the criminal code.

The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act
provides a responsible and balanced approach to extending equal treatment to
same sex couples and ensuring that same sex couples receive the same benefits
and obligations under the law as opposite sex couples.

I will turn for a moment to some of the legal
difficulties with the bill before us today. Because provincial and territorial
laws are based on the same concepts of marriage that are reflected in federal
law, Bill C-264 would affect hundreds of laws from coast to coast. Other legal
rules about capacity to marry that are currently in the common law are based on
the opposite sex nature of marriage. These rules have been developed over many
years and would require radical and even legislative change to fit same sex
couples.

For example, opposite sex couples can be granted an
annulment under the common law for lack of consummation. Adultery is grounds
for divorce. Incest in the criminal code is based on an opposite sex model. All
these would need to be fundamentally altered to fit same sex
relationships.

Various court challenges address a number of issues
including constitutional jurisdiction with respect to altering the definition
of marriage. The hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas has mentioned the B.C. case
which is working its way to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. As such it
would be premature to act at this time before we receive guidance from the
courts on this point. Once we have received guidance from the courts parliament
can decide to act if it is necessary and appropriate at that time.

With respect to Bill C-264, legally there is an
additional problem. The bill proposes to simply change the title of the current
act and add one clause. However the whole statute is based on opposite sex
relationships and represents the entire set of limitations on who can legally
marry whom. If the bill were to proceed without the appropriate adjustments it
would effectively create a new discrimination.

(1120)

The government believes strongly in ensuring equal
treatment and legal recognition for people in both same sex unions and opposite
sex relationships. Recognizing the commitment of spouses and common law
partners, including those in same sex unions, is an important and worthy goal
and one that is strongly supported by a majority of Canadians.

The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act
achieves this objective. For these reasons the Minister of Justice cannot
support Bill C-264.

Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we are here to address Bill C-264, an act
to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act, whose purpose is to enable
marriage between persons of the same sex.

The bill as proposed would add the following text to
the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act of Canada. It would add subclause
4.1:

A marriage between two persons is not
invalid by reason only that they are of the same sex.

I will be opposing the bill on two grounds. First, it
is not necessary to modify the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act of Canada to
permit same sex marriage. Second, marriage is principally a provincial and not
a federal concern.

It must be noted that the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees)
Act does not deal in any way with same sex marriage and/or the broader
definition of marriage itself. The Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act of Canada,
an act respecting the laws prohibiting marriages between related persons,
states:

2. (1) Subject to subsection (2),
persons related by consanguinity, affinity or adoption are not prohibited from
marrying each other by reason only of their relationship.

(2) No person shall marry another
person if they are related

(a)
lineally by consanguinity or adoption;

(b) as
brother and sister by consanguinity, whether by the whole blood or by the
half-blood; or

(c) as
brother and sister by adoption.

4. This Act contains all of the
prohibitions in law in Canada against marriage by reason of the parties being
related.

The amendment by the member for Burnaby--Douglas would
add the following text:

4.1 A marriage between two persons is
not invalid by reason only that they are of the same sex.

The member's amendment is totally and wholly
unnecessary. At no point does the current act prohibit same sex unions. It only
mentions the types of marriage which are not legally valid. Same sex unions do
not appear on that list. It is based solely on common law consanguinity
concerns. These exist purely for the purpose of minimizing the chance of
genetic problems in the offspring of a marriage.

History has taught us that siblings should not marry.
It has also taught us that parents should not marry their children. These are
the types of relationships prohibited in the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act.
These prohibitions are based on genetics. Given that same sex couples cannot
reproduce, the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act does not address them in any
way whatsoever.

At the same time it must be noted that the act does not
discriminate on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion,
sex, age, mental disability or physical disability.

Given that the act does not affect same sex couples and
that no one has suggested it discriminates on the grounds covered in section 15
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the proposed amendment is
wholly unnecessary.

The second reason for opposing the amendment is that
marriage is principally a provincial and not a federal concern. In the EGALE
case, Mr. Justice Pitfield of the British Columbia Supreme Court wrote at
paragraph 122 that same sex relationships were:

--a
matter of civil rights of persons within British Columbia. That being the case,
the provincial legislature may provide for their formalization and recognition
should it wish to do so.

B.C.'s marriage act relies on common law to define
“qualification of persons about to marry”. The relevant portion of the act, in
chapter 282, reads:

In matters not provided for law of
England prevails

6 Subject to this Act and any Act of
Canada in force in British Columbia, the law of England as it existed on
November 19, 1858 prevails in all matters relating to the
following:

(a)
the mode of solemnizing marriages;

(b)
the validity of marriages;

(c)
the qualification of parties about to marry;

(d)
the consent of guardians or parents, or any person whose consent is necessary
to the validity of a marriage.

The ability to amend the B.C. marriage act lies only
with the provincial government of British Columbia. The previous NDP government
chose not to make those amendments. It had nine years in absolute power with a
majority government in the provincial legislature and it chose not to do
so.

Two of British Columbia's former premiers, Mr. Glen
Clark and Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh, happen to live in the same community as the member
for Burnaby--Douglas who is sponsoring the legislation. Had he really wanted to
amend B.C.'s marriage act the member would have taken up his cause with either
of the two former premiers. They live in his riding. They are members of his
party. They led a government of his own party and he presumably knows them on a
first name basis. One of them, if not both of them, are constituents of his and
vice versa.

The member had a golden opportunity to raise the issue
with a sympathetic provincial government that had the jurisdiction to make the
changes he seeks. He missed his chance to do so.

(1125)

I respectfully submit that the legislation fails on the
two grounds I have mentioned in my speech. If the hon. member really wanted to
impact on whether people of the same sex have the right to unify in the
institution of marriage, he should have taken his fight to the appropriate
legislature. That would have been the provincial legislature and not the
federal one. Frankly I am surprised that a lawyer does not know the
difference.

(1130)

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member
for Burnaby--Douglas for his initiative in presenting his bill to allow
marriage between persons of the same sex.

In my opinion, it is high time we put an end to this
anomaly, this discrimination which spoils the reputation of Canada and that of
Quebec by expressing our collective will to fight against discriminations of
all sorts.

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms already recognizes the equality of gays and
lesbians. Therefore, how can we explain that the legislator refuses to grant
same sex couples the right to marry legally? We are talking here about civil
weddings of course, and I think the member explained that quite clearly in his
presentation.

Last year, passage of Bill C-23 repealed almost all
explicit references to the gender of partners in federal statutes. As far as we
know, there are only four acts left where partners in a couple are specifically
defined as heterosexual: the Divorce Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal
Code and the Canada Shipping Act.

What the member is asking for would require very little
effort on the part of the legislators. A few amendments would suffice to put an
end to this incredible discrimination.

I listened to representatives of the Liberal Party and
the Canadian Alliance mention various legislative objections to passing this
bill. I do not think that is what is at issue.

If a certain number of amendments to legislation must
be made in order to meet the bill's objectives, we will make them but I think
the crux of the matter is whether or not Canadian parliamentarians are prepared
to remove this obstacle, this discrimination, in order to allow same sex
couples to be married in a civil ceremony.

In my opinion, the legal arguments should naturally be
consistent with our vision of respect for the freedoms and equality of all
citizens of Canada and Quebec.

What is really at issue here is our concept of
citizenship. Is every member of society, regardless of religion, political
beliefs, sex or sexual orientation entitled to the same treatment, rights and
obligations? This is where we must respond in the affirmative by making civil
marriage open to same sex couples.

I am referring here to a dissenting opinion by Justice
L'Heureux-Dubé, who said in a ruling concerning a civil marriage
case:

Given the marginalized position of
homosexuals in society, the metamessage that flows almost inevitably from
excluding same-sex couples from such an important social
institution--

She is referring here to civil marriage.

--is
essentially that society considers such relationships to be less worthy of
respect, concern and consideration than relationships involving members of the
opposite sex.

I share this view entirely. In response to this comment
by Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, it seems to me that we must make it very clear that
citizenship as we understand it in Canada entitles one to the same rights,
obligations and institutions, including civil marriage.

As I mentioned earlier, I think it is time to end this
discriminatory situation, which reflects poorly on Canada.

Obviously, there is nothing preventing same sex couples
from living together. This, I think, is what many of them decide to do, as do
many heterosexual couples now.

However that is not the issue. It has to do with
whether or not they will be given access to the institution of marriage if they
so wish. Some people decide that they do want to marry. I do not see why the
fact that they are a same sex couple should prevent them from being able to
marry if they choose it freely. Marriage would provide them with some
additional protection under certain statutes.

More fundamental, in the context of a relationship
between two persons, the decision to marry can improve the quality of the
relationship. This reflects their perception.

(1135)

Let me give a personal example. I lived common law with
my wife for several years. There came a time when we decided to marry. We felt
that marriage would strengthen our commitment to each other. It meant something
more than being in a common law relationship. This was our perception of the
situation as a couple. There was no institution preventing us from having a
civil wedding, and that is what we did in the end. This year we celebrated our
10th wedding anniversary.

As I see it, the situation is the same for same sex
couples. They must have the right, if they so choose, to marry if they think
that it will improve the quality of their relationship. Once again, I repeat
that it is up to the couple to decide. Granting gays and lesbians access to
civil marriage reflects what society believes. Clearly, the law is totally
outdated on this score.

In a Canada-wide poll conducted in June by Léger
Marketing, Canadians were asked if they believed homosexuals had the same
rights as other Canadians: 75.7% answered yes. Thus, more than three-quarters
of Canadians believe that homosexuals deserve to have all of the rights
available in our society.

As concerns civil marriage more specifically, 65.4% of
people said they agreed that same sex couples should be able to marry under our
laws.

On a personal level, this is a commitment or a position
I have had for over 15 years at least. As for unions, as the secretary general
of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux since the early 1990s, I fought
for the removal from collective agreements of all existing discrimination with
regard to same sex couples. We worked hard at that, which led to passage of
legislation on this subject by the National Assembly. I think we have to follow
that logic through to its conclusion and give same sex couples access to the
institution of civil marriage.

During the election campaign I also made a commitment
to ensure that gays and lesbians had access to all the civil rights in Canada,
including the right to get married. In my case, this is tied in with this
notion of citizenship, which I find extremely important. I share the opinion of
the hon. member for
Burnaby--Douglas that,
following the events of September 11, Canada must become even more exemplary
with regard to the defence of rights and freedoms. What we are doing here is,
first and foremost, fighting for rights and freedoms.

I will conclude by saying that two of my three children
are still rather young and I do not know yet what sexual orientation they will
choose. No matter what their choice will be I hope they will not become social
outcasts and will have access to the same rights as all the citizens of
Canada.

[English]

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill
C-264. The bill would make two changes in the current Marriage (Prohibited
Degrees) Act. The first would be to change the title of the act to the marriage
capacity act. The second of course would add section 4.1, which would
state:

A marriage between two persons is not
invalid by reason only that they are of the same sex.

At the outset, I want to say I cannot support the bill.
Obviously, as the title of the act being amended indicates, there are
prohibitions on who can marry. Close blood relatives, for instance, are
forbidden to marry because of possible birth defects to any children arising
out of the marriage. Brothers and sisters may not marry. A divorced person may
remarry but not to a child of the previous marriage.

Marriage is considered to be an activity for mature
individuals, given the rights and responsibilities that go along with that.
Therefore, in this country we do not permit children to marry each other or an
adult to marry a child. Both parties to a marriage must be of an age and of an
intelligence to understand the serious nature of the institution into which
they are entering.

I cannot stress enough the word institution.
Institutions are a deep rooted part of our culture and are something that
should not be lightly tampered with and should not likely be changed.

Our society, as we are all very much aware, has evolved
and these days common law heterosexual or opposite sex couples have the same
rights and obligations to property as do married couples. The House, as we are
all very much aware as well, recently passed a law extending certain rights
with regard to pensions and what have we to common law, homosexual or same
sexual couples.

However, at the same time it should be pointed out that
the House went out of its way to insert a clause in that legislation
reasserting that while being a couple was one thing being a married couple was
entirely different. That clause went out of the way to state that a marriage
was a union between a man and a woman only. That must be maintained.

The hon. member's proposed title change takes the
emphasis off who may not marry and replaces it with an emphasis on who may
marry. I do not support the new emphasis because I see it as eroding a basic
concept of our law, namely that marriage is restricted to opposite sex couples
only.

I want to make it perfectly clear that heterosexual
people have to be tolerant of other ways of life. However, I would submit that
it is time for homosexual people to be tolerant of the heterosexual way of life
as well, which is that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. That is
very clear in the legislation.

Similarly, the new section 4.1 says that being a same
sex couple should not preclude the union being regarded as a marriage. That is
diametrically opposed, as I said a moment ago, to the clause that was inserted
in the bill, which restricted marriage to opposite sex couples only.

The other factor here of course for many of us is that
a marriage, whether performed by a judge or a clergy person, is deemed to be
more than just a sexual union between a man and a woman. A marriage is one of
the basic building blocks of our society. It is one of the basic building
blocks of a family. It is therefore also a spiritual union between a man and a
women, a union uniquely designed for the conception and nurturing of
children.

(1140)

That is not to say, of course, that all married people
have children, they do not. However, the potential is there and the institution
lends itself very well to that potential should it ever become a
reality.

A family, of course, is under pressure from many
different directions in this fast-paced secular world in which we live. In all
conscience I cannot support motions or bills which would put additional
pressure on the institution of marriage, as marriage is one of the central
pillars of family life.

Again, let me be clear. I do not support discrimination
against same sex couples, however, they do not fit the recognized definition of
a marriage because marriage is union of two people of opposite
sexes.

I would like to quote what I recently read in the
Australian Melbourne Herald Sun. The Australian prime minister, John
Howard, said that the reality of homosexual liaisons did not mean that same sex
couples should be granted the right to marriage. He went on to say that the
institution of marriage should be protected.

He said that the continuity of our society depended on
there being a margin around things like that, around marriage. He added that
many people, he being one, saw marriage as one of the bedrock institutions of
our society.

The Vatican recently stated that the impact on the
family needed to be one of the prime considerations in all political action.
There is not a major religion on the face of the globe that does not value the
role of family in our society today.

I have made no secret of my personal belief that the
family is central to the well-being of our society. I also feel that one of the
central pillars underpinning the family is marriage and marriage, by definition
and by law, is the union of a man and a woman. Because of that, I cannot
support the hon. member's bill.

(1145)

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the
member for Vancouver East.

It was just over a year and a half ago that we
celebrated in my riding the passage of the historic Bill C-23. It was an
amazing step in terms of the equality of our gay and lesbian couples, in terms
of their common law relationships and being treated the same as heterosexual
couples.

It is important now that the member for
Burnaby--Douglas has brought to the House the final step in achieving ultimate
equality for these couples. It is clear that couples who would like to
formalize their relationship would like the state and their religious faith to
recognize that commitment.

Our country will only ever be as strong as the
individual family units that have decided that they will look after one
another. It is extraordinarily important that these units are recognized and
have the full right of other couples. To have any less a relationship speaks
against the diversity that we welcome in this country. We must move beyond
tolerance and into the respect and the true equality that is beyond the kind of
discrimination that prevents these couples from marriage.

There are times for parliament to lead and this is one
of them. To be spend time and money in the courts when the Canadian public is
way ahead of us on this is a shame. It is truly an important time and it is
disappointing that the bill is non-votable because some of the small concerns
around the bill could have been very easily sorted out in committee.

It is important that we move forward in addressing this
discrimination. I, together with the member for
Toronto
Centre--Rosedale, support the member for Burnaby--Douglas, EGALE
and all the people who have worked so hard to achieve this final step in true
equality for all Canadians.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Burnaby--Douglas for bringing forward this issue. It is an historic day because
we are debating in the House of Commons the issue of same sex marriage.

I recognize the outstanding, tireless and very
passionate efforts of my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas. He has been an
advocate for all human rights as well as equality for gays and lesbians in
Canada and around the world for many years. His work in bringing this issue
forward today so we can debate the bill and hopefully move forward is something
that is very important.

I listened carefully to the debate in the House. It was
disturbing to hear some of the members who spoke in opposition to the bill
because the reasons and excuses they came up with were simply indefensible. At
the end of the day it comes down to this: we either have equality in the
country or we do not. We cannot have half equality.

Bill C-23 was a good piece of legislation in as far as
it went. It did not really deal with the issue of equality in terms of
marriage. Therefore I feel very strongly about the importance of the bill. We
heard arguments that too many laws would have to be changed and that somehow we
could not do anything because Canada was based on common law. These were all
weak excuses that really did not deal with the fundamental issue before us:
equality for gays and lesbians.

I was involved with Bruce Eriksen for 24 years in a
common law relationship. During the course of that relationship I never opposed
or denied the right of heterosexual couples to have the choice to marry. I am
now involved in a same sex relationship. I do not deny or oppose anyone's
choice either to be involved in a common law relationship or a relationship
that is affirmed by marriage. That is really what the debate is about today.

We must be careful that we do not go down the road of
hypocrisy. We heard members say that they do not support discrimination against
gays and lesbians. If that is correct we must be true to what the charter says.
One of the unfortunate things is that so much legislation comes about because
of litigation, forcing people through the courts.

It would be preferable if parliament, as the federal
body in the country that has the leadership and mandate to deal with issues
like this, would send a clear signal that equality includes the right of gays
and lesbians to marry if they so choose.

I hope there are other members of the House who will
put aside their prejudice and discrimination and will recognize that if they
support the charter and equality then they will support the bill. They will
make sure people are not forced into incredible litigation when it is an issue
that should be decided by the House of Commons.

(1150)

Mr. John Bryden
(Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for St. John's East
on his speech because he captured the feelings of many of us who are opposed to
the legislation perfectly.

I would like to correct an impression conveyed by some
of those supporting the legislation. It is true that the majority of Canadians
support equal benefits to dependent couples, be they dependent couples in a
same sex, heterosexual or family relationship. However the majority of
Canadians do not support the idea of same sex marriage and there are some very
good reasons for this.

I really do not like to be tarred with the brush of
being discriminatory because I do not agree with the bill. I believe that we
must provide equality to all Canadians in dependent relationships. The concept
of marriage goes back several thousand years and it is intimately connected
with religion, not just Christianity but other religions. The religious
institution of marriage preceded the civil institution of marriage. We do a
great disrespect to religion when civil society takes what was originally a
religious concept and turn it to its own ends.

Even as a civil institution, I have difficulty with the
idea of marriage as a same sex relationship because it could affect the rights
of children. I believe that when all things are absolutely even we should
regard children as being better off with a heterosexual parental relationship
rather than a same sex parental relationship.

This is not to say that we cannot have same sex parents
who are very good just as we can have heterosexual parents who are very bad.
The natural order of things is that we would assume until there is real proof
to the contrary that children are better off, all other things being equal,
with heterosexual parents. Until we can prove otherwise we have to allow for
the rights of children before the rights of adults.

That is all I have to say on the subject. I believe
that the member who introduced the bill believes in what he is intending. I
took very much to heart his idea of the romantic concept of the same sex
relationship, but in the end we have to set aside our desires for absolute
equality as adults and defer to the absolute rights of children.

(1155)

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there are two points that I would like to
make with regard to this issue. It has been mentioned that parliament ought to
be leading the courts and not the other way around and that parliament should
not wait until it gets direction from the courts. I agree wholeheartedly.

Since I was elected in 1993 the House of Commons has
dealt with this issue on a number of occasions. I remember the first time when
the member for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve brought in a motion to bring in benefits
for same sex partners. I recall that only 10 Liberals voted for it at that
time. We have spoken many times on what Canadian society wants when it comes to
the sanctity of marriage.

It has been stated that this in no way demeans
heterosexual marriage. I contend that it does. Not long ago the House of
Commons asked me to fill out a form indicating who I would like to have as my
travelling partner because it pays for a travelling partner.

This is demeaning to my wife to whom I have been
married for 40 years. She has never worked in an employed position so she has
been dependent on me not only for income but for providing for the family and
for providing for our retirement. She has worked very hard. I would venture to
say, though not being paid, she has probably worked harder than I have. She is
a wonderful mother and grandmother and now she is reduced to being a travelling
partner.

The legislation does have an effect and I resent that.
She is my wife, my dearly beloved, and I hope that we have another 20 or 30
years together as is the habit in our family.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I will start with the comment by the
member for Elk Island who spoke about his relationship with his wife of over 40
years. He felt somehow that relationship was being demeaned by the fact that he
designated her as his travelling companion. Let us be clear about why the House
of Commons moved in that important area.

I would have loved it if the spouses, companions and
partners of those of us who are gay and lesbian in the House were recognized
equally. It is precisely because the House was not prepared to extend full and
open recognition to our partners that we must designate a traveller. Why should
my partner not be treated equally with respect to the rights to travel as the
wife of the member for Elk Island? Why should it be any different at
all?

With respect to the Liberal member who spoke just
before the member for Elk Island, he suggested that the right of a child to be
raised in a nurturing and loving environment was the most important issue. He
said very clearly that gay and lesbian families were not in a position to do
that as effectively as heterosexual families. That is simply false. A number of
studies have indicated that children raised in loving gay or lesbian families
are well adjusted. In fact those families are just as strong, nurturing and
loving as heterosexual families.

It is insulting to gay and lesbian families and
partners who are raising children to suggest that they are not just as able to
raise kids in loving environments as heterosexual families.

(1200)

[Translation]

I wish to thank my colleague, the hon. member for
Joliette, who spoke on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, not only for his support
of this bill, which recognizes the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry,
but also for his work for equality, for close to 20 years now I believe, within
the labour movement and elsewhere.

As I have said, the hon. member for
Hochelaga--Maisonneuve has also done an excellent job.

[English]

I thank the member for St. Paul's for her support not
only today but consistently for equality for gay and lesbian people, along with
the member for Toronto Centre--Rosedale who has also seconded the bill. I thank
my colleague and friend from Vancouver East for her support and for her courage
in speaking out so eloquently and so personally today on this important piece
of legislation.

I hope that members of the House will recognize the
right of equality. I wish to read from an affidavit that was submitted in the
court proceedings for equal marriage rights by Lloyd Thornhill and Robert
Peacock, who have been together for 32 years. Bob said:

I met my spouse, Lloyd Thornhill, in
1968. From the beginning, I believed that God destined us to be together. We
have been together in a monogamous, loving relationship for the past 32 years.
If we could have married years ago, we would have. We have always supported and
relied on each other. When one of us is down, the other is always there to
bring him back up. Years ago, we exchanged rings as a symbol of our love and
commitment and have never taken them off, except on one occasion when we
exchanged our initial set of rings for a new set. Being able to legally marry
now would simply allow us to gain legal recognition of the reality of our
relationship. Denying us the right to marry sends a message that our
relationship is less deserving of recognition just because we are gay. I
believe that Lloyd and I deserve to be able to legally marry, as heterosexual
couples do, and to be recognized as a family unit.

Thirty-two years seems like an awfully long time to be
engaged. I appeal to members of the House today to support the principle of the
legislation for Lloyd and Bob, and for all the gay and lesbian couples across
the country who want the right to equality and the right to make a
choice.

I seek unanimous consent of the House to send the
subject matter of the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights where it can be studied, strengthened and hopefully passed by the House
so that a clear signal could be sent indicating that gay and lesbian people are
fully equal in Canadian society.

The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
The time provided for the consideration of private
members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a
votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Supply]

* * *

[Translation]

Supply

Allotted Day--International Aid
Policy

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ)
moved

That
this House call upon the government to review its international aid policy with
a view to substantially increasing the funds available for Canadian
humanitarian aid, particularly in the context of the military interventions in
Afghanistan, and to increasing the level of its aid for development to 0.7% of
GDP, as recommended by the United Nations.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Chair
that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mercier.

We are at war. That is our reality. In light of this
situation, many things are going on at the present time. A military campaign is
under way. It is very important--urgent even--to think of what will happen
after the retaliation. We need to ask ourselves not only what must be done now,
but also what must be done in the future. As well, we need to ask ourselves why
the events of September 11 occurred. What is the root of this evil?

We need to understand that many things have changed
since September 11. People's mentalities have changed as well, I believe. We
have realized that the world is far smaller than we thought. I have often
discussed globalization and the distribution of the world's wealth. Where
terrorism is concerned, I believe it is essential to ask ourselves whether
there is a link between it and poverty. Most analysts, I believe, will confirm
that there certainly is. It is not the entire explanation, but there is
certainly a connection.

When some peoples are unable to provide for their basic
needs, when they do not have a life allowing them to attain their full
potential and when they do not have access to security but at the same time
witness the wealth of northern countries, this can bring about jealousy, hatred
and interrogations.

If I was an Afghan today and I saw what is going on in
northern countries, it is likely that, like people do in those countries, I
would ask myself why I do not have access to the same kind of liberty, the same
kind of life.

First of all, when we look at the precarious situation
which prevails in several countries around the world, it would be normal to
feel compassion. Compassion is this very human feeling which makes us realize
that living conditions in those countries make no sense. I ask those who are
against such questioning to rise. I believe it makes no sense.

Since September 11, we can no longer base our
reflection solely on compassion. It may be sad to say, but if we look at the
issue in an egoistic way, we realized on September 11 that the misfortune of
others could also have an impact on us. As Nelson Mandela said, “Security for a
few is insecurity for all”. There were many people who believed, before
September 11, that the poverty of others was the problem of others.

We can no longer think that way today. I believe the
events of September 11 have contributed to promote globalization, eliminate
distances in our world and make us realize that we truly live in a global
village and that more than never before the problems of other countries are our
own problems. Those events will at least have done one thing, that is to
question the whole process of international co-operation, all the co-operation
northern countries lend the rest of the world.

This is why we believe that poverty, misery and anger
are certainly a good breeding ground for future terrorists. This is why we
think it is necessary not only to reflect on Canada's aid to other countries
but also to ask ourselves whether Canada is really doing its share to deal with
the current crisis. Of course, I am still speaking in the context of
international co-operation.

There is a major crisis, at present. The bombings and
the military intervention have parallel consequences in that they create
thousands of refugees for whom food and shelter will become even more of a
problem as winter rolls in.

(1205)

It is essential to examine this issue and to find
solutions. And if we want to talk about a new regime to replace the Taliban
regime, then we must also consider the economic and geopolitical aspects for
that entire region. When talking about reconstruction, we must keep that in
mind.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois is proposing this
votable motion today, which reads as follows:

That this House call upon the
government to review its international aid policy with a view to substantially
increasing the funds available for Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in
the context of the military interventions in Afghanistan, and to increasing the
level of its aid for development to 0.7% of GDP, as recommended by the United
Nations.

It was agreed in 1969 that all countries would put 0.7%
of their GDP into international aid. This target was set by an independent
commission working under the aegis of the World Bank. The mandate of the
commission was to analyse the effects of 20 years of international aid and the
various possible perspectives. It was chaired by Lester B. Pearson, who was
then Canada's ambassador to the United Nations.

Since then, if we look at the situation compared to
this international aid objective, we see that Canada ranks 17 out of 22
donating countries. It is no secret to anyone here that Canada has always
boasted about being a very compassionate country. Everyone recognizes the work
of peacekeepers. Canadians and Quebecers are proud of this reputation. They are
proud of these peaceful international missions.

However, words have to be matched by deeds. With Canada
ranking 17, we should ask ourselves some questions, particularly since other
countries have reached this objective of 0.7% of GDP.

I have here figures that show that Luxembourg has
reached this objective of 0.7%. Norway has even exceeded it, since it is at
0.8% of its GDP. Sweden is at 0.81%. The Netherlands are at 0.82%, while
Denmark is at 1.06%. This is definitely not an objective that is impossible to
achieve, since countries smaller than Canada have reached these
percentages.

But this is not the only thing that must be done. I
believe we also have to do some serious thinking. It should have occurred
before September 11, but now that everyone feels more involved, all of us on
this planet must stop and ask ourselves how we can turn international aid into
something effective, something that will have a positive impact. Will this be
achieved merely by increasing financial assistance? I do not think so.

I believe there are other solutions. We should consider
forgiving the debt of third world countries, for instance. There is also the
type of aid to be provided. Is the aid provided through CIDA effective? Are we
investing enough money in education? Should we invest more in basic
needs?

We have a long way to go. I do not think that a day
like today will solve all the problems, but the Bloc Quebecois should be
commended for raising this issue. I hope that greater priority will be given to
it. Many questions have to be asked, and much needs to be done, and it is from
this perspective that we presented this motion today.

(1210)

[English]

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on the motion
that the Bloc has brought forward. While in principle I agree with many of the
sentiments my colleague from the Bloc has talked about, especially in regard to
coming up with innovative ideas to aid the developing world with our assistance
dollars, I would like to ask him a question, especially in light of the fact
that the Bloc is calling for 0.7% of the GDP as a target for international
development. At one point he mentioned that we are 17th in the world, which is
true, but in actual dollar values he should recognize that we are actually 8th
in the world in comparison to the other countries.

I am interested in knowing from my colleague from the
Bloc whether he is asking that this money go through the CIDA budget. This is
most important since CIDA is the primary agency for international development.
Does he think that this money, this increase that the Bloc has put forward,
should be directed through CIDA and that CIDA would be the recipient of the
majority of this increase? In light of the fact that most of us do have some
problems with CIDA, I would like to hear his thoughts on what he feels is the
most effective way to do this.

(1215)

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay:
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking a question I
touched on briefly in my remarks. The motion before us suggests a certain goal,
but it does not spell out the exact means to reach that goal. I have been
talking about various options. Other issues should be raised, like the access
to markets in the north by developing countries.

Mike Moore, from the WTO, says that the opening up of
the markets on countries in the north could generate three times more wealth
than does the current international assistance. This is what I want to warn the
hon. members about today. There are many options. Should all the money be
channeled through CIDA? That is not what we are suggesting today.

If this money goes to NGOs that accomplish useful,
efficient and relevant work in the field, I have no problem if the money is not
channeled through CIDA. If CIDA can demonstrate with openness that its actions
are efficient too, we do no mind if the money goes through this agency or not.
Efficiency is what counts. I do not think today is the time to deal with the
fine details of our assistance. We should discuss a financial goal that is,
ultimately, our responsibility.

That is why this motion mentions the level of 0.7% of
GDP. If tomorrow or in his next budget, the Minister of Finance increases
considerably the level of our assistance, it would be relevant, in my opinion,
if the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade examined
the most efficient means to make this assistance more profitable. I think this
is the best way to go.

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, first, all the Bloc Quebecois members will
be sharing their time today. Therefore, each will have ten minutes.

For those listening or watching on television today, I
would like to read aloud the opposition motion on which members of the House
will be voting:

That this House call upon the
government to review its international aid policy with a view to substantially
increasing the funds available for Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in
the context of the military interventions in Afghanistan, and to increasing the
level of its aid for development to 0.7% of GDP, as recommended by the United
Nations.

I am very proud to speak to this motion today, since
there is a story behind this goal set by the United Nations in 1990.

First, for those listening, “0.7% of GDP” is not 1%; it
means seven-tenths of one percent. And the GDP is an accepted manner of
measuring wealth.

This goal was adopted by the United Nations in 1990.
Canada should have special feelings when it comes to this figure, because the
man who signed the United Nations report in 1969 that recommended this goal for
the first time was known by many people in this chamber. It was Lester B.
Pearson, who was Canada's ambassador to the UN at the time.

In response to the serious international situation back
then, and in response to what he considered as the failure of developmental
aid, Pearson recommended this goal and hoped it would be reached by 1975. It
was only in 1990--when it was proposed by a developing country,
incidentally--that the United Nations finally voted to set it as a goal for all
countries.

What is interesting for Quebecers and Canadians to know
is that, in 1990 when it was adopted, Canada contributed 0.48%. It was close to
seven-tenths. It was 4.8 tenths of one per cent.

In other words, since Canada now gives 0.25%, it now
gives half, proportionally, of what it gave in 1990 towards the goal set in
1969 by Lester B. Pearson. This is unacceptable. We have said it again and
again.

As my young and brilliant colleague from
Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay was saying, this goal is seen in a completely new
perspective since these attacks that disrupted the whole world. I am talking of
course of the September 11 attacks in New York, in Washington and elsewhere.

The events of September 11 were very instructive for
everybody. The terrorists are not poor people but they feed on the
international situation and, moreover, they already have imitators amongst the
young people in Arab and Muslim countries, and in many other very poor
countries, who have no hope and who live in desperate conditions. I think of
Colombia for example, where chaos has almost become a way of life. And what
about Palestine?

(1220)

September 11 was quite instructive. The international
aid, which will have to take many different forms, will have to reach at least
this goal because the present challenge deals less with unfairness and more
with fairness.

There will be people to say that it is a huge amount
but compared to the poverty in which many people are living, it is far from
being too large. It is interesting to note in passing that it is mainly in
small countries that the 0.7% goal has not only been reached but exceeded.

Denmark, which is a rich small country, with a
population of about 5 million people share 1.06% of its wealth. The Netherlands
have a population of about 15 million and share some 0.82% of their wealth.
Sweden and Norway share 0.8%. Those are small rich countries that have realized
that they cannot be satisfied with being happy and part of the richest
countries if they are alone at the top.

September 11 showed us that there is no longer any
country, no matter how large, strong and rich--and I am thinking of the United
States and of the European countries--that can hope to ensure its own security
without being at all concerned about the rest of the world. Mrs. Fréchette,
Kofi Annan's assistant and UN deputy secretary general, who was here and who I
had the privilege to teach as a young teacher at College Basile Moreau, said
that if we wanted to counter the violence, intolerance and fanaticism of
terrorists and protect the values that are dear to us, including freedom,
tolerance, justice and equality, we had to do a better job at reducing economic
disparities between the rich and the poor.

We could also quote numerous World Bank reports,
including the 2000-01 report, which says “Poor people live without fundamental
freedoms of action and choice that the better-off take for granted. They often
lack adequate food and shelter, education and health, deprivations that keep
them from leading the kind of life that everyone values. They also face extreme
vulnerability to ill health, economic dislocation, and natural disasters”.

It must be noted that, in countries like ours, less
than one--these are statistics--or let us say rather that one out of 100
children dies before the age of five. In poorer countries, one out of five
children die before the age of five. Ninety-five per cent of the 160,000 people
who contract AIDS daily come from poor countries. AIDS has become a disease of
the poor.

Canada must make a commitment to meet that 0.7% target
proposed by Pearson in 1969 and set in 1990. The question is not to determine
whether or not CIDA is the main vehicle or whether or not CIDA has faults. What
is important is to have the political will to meet that target, and I say it is
a minimum.

At the Quebec summit, the Prime Minister even said that
we needed to do that but we need to do it as soon as possible, not in 10 years.
Now we must decide how it should be done. It can certainly be done through
multilateral means. In 1990 the rule was that 20% had to go through large
international institutions such as the World Bank. We could go back to
that.

(1225)

The important thing is to really start working toward
helping restore equity. Yes, we must have open borders but it will not be
enough if that only allows rich people in those countries to get even richer.
The work to be done is enormous.

[English]

Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State
(Asia-Pacific), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my
colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation.

I am pre-eminently privileged to speak on behalf of the
Government of Canada and state that we support the motion. I am confident that
I reflect to the House similar sentiments from my constituents, the people of
Winnipeg North--St. Paul, and other fellow Canadians nationwide because support
for international development activities is at the core of Canadian humanity.

I am speaking today on behalf the Minister for
International Cooperation who would have been here were she not in the midst of
the UNESCO meetings in Paris exploring avenues on how to improve access to
education for all boys and girls in developing countries.

Last week the minister co-chaired the World Coalition
for Africa meeting in Botswana which focused on organizing support for the
development and reduction of poverty, notably on the role of the private sector
in the recovery and progress of the African economies so necessary in achieving
these goals. Poverty reduction and sustainable development are key global
challenges.

The motion before us calls upon the government to
review its international aid policy. In fact the minister and her department,
CIDA, are already engaged in a process of reviewing our program to bolster the
effectiveness of Canada's aid to developing countries and to make Canada's
development co-operation program more effective in building a better quality of
life for some of the poorest and most marginalized people in the
world.

The minister and her officials visited 10 Canadian
cities and heard from over 1,000 organizations and individuals. Many excellent
suggestions emerged from these extensive community consultations.

First, that there was a need for more public awareness
of the role and importance of international development co-operation and of
Canada's international aid program. The debate we are having today in the House
should help in this regard. It reminds us that the international aid program is
firmly rooted in our sense of social justice and humanity. It reminds us that
it is inherently good; good for strengthening democracy and socialist ability
for promoting peace. It reminds us that Canadian interests are also served by
measures that serve our global interdependence.

Second, we also heard from consultation participants
the call for funding increases that would put Canada on track toward the 0.7%
target, 0.7% of the gross domestic product, as raised in the motion before
us.

Let me assure colleagues and all Canadians that the
government remains fully committed to working toward this objective as our
fiscal position permits. The 2000 budget provided an additional $435 million to
official development assistance and, in the last Speech from the Throne, we
committed to further increases.

Third, we also heard the need for better co-ordination
of development initiatives across the international community of donors and
recipients and for better ways to co-operate with our partners so that we are
not duplicating the efforts of others.

Our support for the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan
is one good example. Our strategic response has taken into account the
priorities expressed by our partners on the ground. We can take pride that
Canada was one of the first countries to respond to the UN appeal for
assistance to meet the plight of Afghan refugees, committing a total of $16
million in humanitarian assistance in the past month alone.

Through CIDA, the Government of Canada has provided in
the last decade almost $160 million to help alleviate the suffering of refugees
and internally displaced persons affected by two decades of conflict and three
years of devastating drought in that part of the world. Our current support is
directed to various UN agencies and humanitarian organizations that are working
to provide the basic necessities of life, food, shelter and health care, to the
Afghan refugees and others who are victims of this crisis. The funds are also
being used to help support various peace building initiatives in the region. We
are conscious of the impact of the situation across south and central Asia and
are particularly mindful of the pressure on Pakistan which is providing safe
haven for millions of Afghan refugees.

(1230)

The government acted to relieve some of the burden on
Pakistan by converting up to $447 million of its debt owed to CIDA. This means
that instead of making debt payments, Pakistan will be able to put the money
into education and other social programs.

The government has recently focused on four key social
development priorities: health and nutrition, basic education, HIV and AIDS,
and child protection. These are strategic investments and by nature investing
in the future.

Children as beneficiaries have a right to know, to
think, to aspire and to hope. Minimum levels of education and health are
crucial to sustainable development. We believe that education, among other
things, is the development of ideals.

Good social policy begets good economic policy,
especially in today's globalized economy. Smaller nations need assistance so
they may develop the skills required to take part in multilateral trade
agreements and benefit from them. In turn they develop strong and stable
democracies.

Last week in Shanghai, China, on the occasion of the
meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC group, Canada announced
that it would earmark $9 million toward helping to improve the growth prospects
of developing economies in southeast Asia and to help build the capacity of
developing countries to integrate into the global economy and thereby help
generate wealth for the social well-being of their people.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, a recent Nobel prize
recipient, said that the best hope for least developed countries and, indeed,
for the developing world in general, lies in a new round of global,
multilateral trade negotiations.

May it please the House to know that the APEC economies
during their recently concluded ministerial and leaders meetings in Shanghai
unanimously echoed the same sentiment.

Our international aid policy is an integral part of our
foreign policy objectives as set out in the document “Canada in the World”. We
shall conquer the great enemies of poverty and neglect in our own Canadian way
that has defined the greatness of Canada. We will provide measures to a
stricken people in the midst of a stricken nation in peace or in war. We will
continue to wave the bountiful flag of Canada so that the gates of opportunity
and peace shall be open to all peoples of the world.

We support the motion.

(1235)

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech
made by my colleague, and I have a short question to ask him.

In 1990-91, Canada's contribution to international aid
was 0.48%. When the Liberals took power, it dropped to 0.41%, which is 0.5%
less. Now it is down to 0.25%.

The member could make the best speeches in the world
but does he not agree that the federal government has a lot of catching up to
do and very quickly? We all know that international aid is used only to face up
to urgent situations as there is now in Afghanistan. It is also a tool for the
redistribution of wealth. I believe in this matter we were caught in the act,
and this goes for all G-7 countries, Canada in particular, of contributing
insufficiently--I would even say almost nominally--to the point where we are
unable to correct the situation.

Does the member not agree that since a new budget will
be presented in a month this would be a good time to make a major effort in
this regard? We will have to meet obligations in defence but will we also
fulfill our obligations in international assistance?

[English]

Hon. Rey Pagtakhan:
Mr. Speaker, millions of dollars are not insignificant.
When our fiscal position permits we will do more, as the Prime Minister has
said repeatedly in the House.

What we would like to impress upon the opposition is
this. International assistance, international development does not depend on
dollars alone. It depends on other strategies and that is why we have pursued
this strategy of debt relief as well as promoting international trade. The
latter will create wealth and with that social prosperity for the people in the
developing nations of the world. That is why the APEC countries, the
Asia-Pacific region, that houses more than half of the population's poor agreed
that we should pursue a policy of trade so that they too can develop and reap
the benefits of globalization.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête:
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to ask my question
again. Does the member not agree that, presently, with one-quarter of one per
cent, and some will say that money is not the only thing we need, we still need
money for international assistance? Is there not an important and massive
effort to make in the next budget?

[English]

Hon. Rey Pagtakhan:
Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that Canada's expenditure
in 1999 as a percentage of GDP was low.That is why in the year 2000 we
increased it and why I said we would continue to increase our support for
international assistance.

We are not only making fine speeches, we are doing the
deeds that ought to be done. The Minister for International Cooperation is in
Paris right now at the UNESCO meeting trying to galvanize support for the poor.

We will work with our partners and together we shall
achieve the dream of all of us, which is to alleviate and eradicate poverty in
the world.

(1240)

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for International Cooperation, I would like to take the opportunity
the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay is giving the government to show
its commitment to international aid, especially for refugees and displaced
people in Afghanistan.

For several weeks emergency humanitarian aid has been
getting all the attention, and rightly so. Humanitarian aid is a fundamental
way to meet the immediate needs of men, women and children who are suddenly the
victims of terrible conflicts or natural disasters. I will deal with this in a
moment, but I want to stress that our international aid program is far from
limited to just immediate needs.

[English]

Canada's international assistance program is part of a
larger picture with universal long term goals. Just over a year ago, the Prime
Minister and leaders from around the world, from rich countries and poor
countries, gathered at the UN for the millennium summit. There they committed
to reaching a number of goals which we now call the millennium development
goals.

These goals are: to eradicate extreme poverty and
hunger; to achieve universal primary education; to promote gender equality and
empower women; to reduce child mortality; to improve maternal health; to combat
HIV, AIDS, malaria and other diseases; to ensure environmental sustainability;
and, finally, to develop a global partner for development.

[Translation]

Reaching those goals is of the outmost importance for
the future of all the peoples of the world, including Canadians. Prosperity,
security and stability on our planet not only depend on our collective success
as a community of nations but also on our individual will as a country.

This is why the Canadian International Development
Agency, CIDA, continues to carry out its mandate of support for sustainable
development in the fight against poverty. This is why our international aid
program is one of the priorities of the Prime Minister and his
government.

Last week the Minister for International Cooperation
was in Botswana as joint chair of the Global Coalition for Africa. With her
colleagues from Africa and other industrialized countries, she discussed means
to support the new African initiative.

This initiative, which is without precedent, was
launched by leaders of Africa in order to give the whole African continent the
chance to get out of poverty and achieve the objectives of development for the
millennium. We will play a leading role in the development of the answer the
G-8 countries will give to the new African initiative next year when Canada
hosts the G-8 summit at Kananaskis in Alberta.

If the Minister for International Cooperation is unable
to take part in this debate it is because at this very moment she is at UNESCO
headquarters promoting “Education for all” which, as members will have noted,
is one of the millennium development objectives. As a matter of fact, access to
education is far from being universal.

I wonder if we are aware of the fact that 113 million
boys and girls, but mostly girls, do not have access to the most elementary
education. This is 20 times the number of Canadian children. Those children are
doomed to illiteracy, disease and utter poverty.

We all know that prosperity in Canada is based upon
universal and free access to education, without distinction of gender, ethnic
origin or any other factor. We all know that if Canadians live peacefully
together and with their neighbours, it is because we have an educated
population, which is a critical foundation of the democratic institutions we
are so proud of.

The Minister for International Cooperation and her
department, CIDA, are multiplying their efforts to contribute to education for
all on a global scale. Incidentally, in the year 2005 the Canadian contribution
to basic education will have quadrupled, for a total investment of $555 million
over five years.

(1245)

[English]

Now let me turn to Canada's support for the people of
Afghanistan. Canada was one of the first countries to respond to the initial
appeal by the United Nations. We have provided our assistance strategically and
in close consultation with our people in the field and with major humanitarian
organizations such as the Red Cross, the World Food Program and the UN high
commissioner for refugees.

In response to the crisis of the past few weeks, CIDA
has given $16 million, and I do mean given; the money has already been
allocated. I am proud to say that when this government makes an announcement
for international aid, the money is on its way. Canada has delivered in the
short term.

In the past and in the future, Canada has and will
continue to deliver in the long term as well. Over the past decade, long before
the events of September 11, we were already working side by side with the
people of Afghanistan, helping them in the wake of twenty years of conflict and
three years of a devastating drought. Providing basic health care and
preventative nutrition, supporting teachers in makeshift schools, demining
roads, villages and fields and sowing the seeds of peace, we have truly been
supporting ordinary people doing extraordinary things to survive and give their
communities a sense of hope.

We are already considering the next steps, including
peace building activities because fostering opportunities for dialogue,
understanding and reconciliation are the foundations of stable societies. We
are also looking ahead to the kind of longer term support we will be able to
offer to the people of Afghanistan in the event of their choosing a
representative, internationally recognized government dedicated to lifting that
country out of poverty.

In the words of World Bank president James
Wolfensohn:

The greatest long-term challenge for
the world community...is that of fighting poverty and promoting inclusion
worldwide. This is even more imperative now, when we know that because of the
terrorist attacks, growth in developing countries will falter, pushing millions
more into poverty and causing tens of thousands of children to die from
malnutrition, disease and deprivation.

This is why the government is pleased to support this
motion. The motion is consistent with the government's ongoing commitment to
international assistance. It is consistent with the government's increase of
$435 million over three years that the last federal budget provided for the
international assistance envelope. It is also consistent with our commitment to
work in a responsible fashion toward increasing official development assistance
to 0.7% of our gross national product as our fiscal situation
permits.

Again, the government supports the motion. As I just
stated, it is consistent with the actions of the government over the last
couple of years to increase the official international assistance envelope. It
is consistent with the throne speech of this year where the government
committed to increasing international assistance and the envelope for
that.

I want to commend the member from the opposition for
this motion because it is consistent with the government's policy. We have done
a lot in terms of international development and we have a lot more to do. That
is why the government has already made the commitment to increase our official
international assistance.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I understand discussions have taken place
between all parties and I believe you would find consent for the following
motion. I move:

That
at the conclusion of the present debate on today's opposition motion, all
questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded
division deemed requested and deferred to the expiry of the time provided for
government orders on Tuesday, October 30, 2001.

(1250)

The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed
to)

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, following the remarks made by my colleague
from the governing party, I congratulate the government for supporting the
motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. We are very pleased.

Canada being in 17th place out of 22 donor countries,
it is to be hoped that the government will agree to meet the 0.7% of GDP
target, especially since we are currently at 0.25% only.

Can the parliamentary secretary tell us if the
government intends to increase international aid in its next budget? Supporting
the 0.7% target is one thing, but meeting it is another thing and that takes
action.

What measures will the Minister of Finance take to meet
this target?

Mrs.
Marlene Jennings:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for his
question.

I would like to mention that, in the last federal
budget, the government increased the allocation for international aid by $435
million over three years. This means that each year, for three years, it will
be increased by some $135 million.

This year, in the Speech from the Throne, the
government made a commitment, and I will read the quote in English because I do
not have it in French:

[English]

“We will increase Canada's official
development assistance and use these new investments to advance efforts to
reduce international poverty and to strengthen democracy, justice and social
stability worldwide”.

[Translation]

We will increase Canada's official development aid and
use these new investments to advance efforts to reduce international poverty
and to strengthen democracy, justice and social stability worldwide.

I think the question is relevant. The government had
already made the commitment to increase considerably the allocation for
international aid and, in the Speech from the Throne, it clearly made the
commitment to continue increasing it.

Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, what the member is saying is that at the
rate the government is starting to increase its commitment, it will take 20, 25
or even 30 years to reach the goal set by international organizations.

This issue has not lost any of its relevance. Should we
not make some very significant moves, in the coming budget in early December,
and start thinking about increasing from 0.25% to 0.30%, or something like
that, the level of aid we are providing? This would be a major increase in the
amount set aside for international aid.

We could then show we consider this to be a good way to
better share the wealth on this planet.

In 1989-90 Canada spent $2.8 billion and in 2000-01 it
spent $3.002 billion. It is an increase, and as I have already said, the
government intends to keep on increasing the amount spent.

(1255)

[English]

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on the
motion brought forward by the Bloc about international aid. International aid
is an important part of Canada's contribution to the international community.
The Bloc motion asks for an increase in CIDA's, or international development,
aid to respond to the immediate humanitarian crisis and, in particular, for a
more effective response to the crisis in Afghanistan.

The Canadian Alliance fully supports this portion of
the Bloc motion. The official opposition has long been calling for more aid for
the innocent people of Afghanistan. Unfortunately Canada's contribution to this
effort has been disgracefully small. We must be thoughtful about finding
solutions for this complicated humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.

The bombing campaign is in its fourth week and the
minister for international development, as has been alluded to by the
parliamentary secretary on many occasions, has travelled to Africa and Europe,
but has not found time to go to Pakistan to figure out the solution to the
refugee problem. The former minister of foreign affairs has already done this
with Oxfam. I have also learned that CIDA still has only three field offices in
Pakistan.

The Bloc motion also calls for an increase in the
international aid budget from .25% to 0.7% of the GDP as recommended by the
United Nations. Let us be realistic. I have listened to my colleagues from the
Bloc and to the replies given by the government. What I have found is an
absolutely vague concept. They both agree to 0.7% as recommended by the United
Nations but apparently there is absolutely no plan.

The government agrees and very nicely says that it is
committed to this goal when it has the resources. Whether it will be in 10 or
15 years, as the Bloc just asked, we do not know. It is nice for the government
to say that it likes this target, that the target has been there for many years
and that it will probably be there for many more but there is absolutely no
plan on how the money will be raised or when it will be available.

The Bloc is requesting immediate funds in the next
budget as there are major important issues facing the country, national
security being number one.

This would amount to an increase of 280% or
approximately $4 billion. The nation is currently in a state of war and we have
a primary responsibility to enhance the national security for Canadians, not to
mention the ensuring physical responsibility.

The Alliance is calling for a balanced budget and will
not accept another deficit. Even the Canadian Council for International
Cooperation, a respected group of NGOs that understands international
development, is only asking for an increase of .25% to .35% over four years.
That is the plan.

We must be thoughtful and recognize that any increase
would need to coincide with fundamental CIDA re-prioritization of its reform.
Why do I talk about CIDA? Because all the money will be channelled through
CIDA. We need therefore to re-tool CIDA for effective humanitarian assistance
and development aid for the benefit of the poor countries of the
world.

This development aid should promote sound investment
plans, good governance and adherence to the rules of law. We have come full
circle from the 1970s when there was government to government aid, then from
the 1980s when aid had been given through the NGOs for more effective
accountability. Now we look for other means.

Let me point at this time to a study by the Australian
government on globalization that provides very interesting data on how much
world poverty has been reduced. According to this study, up to 1.2 billion of
the developing world's 4.8 billion people still live in extreme poverty, but
the proportion of world population living in poverty has been steadily
declining. Since 1980, the absolute number of poor people has stopped rising
and appears to have fallen in recent years, despite strong population growth in
poor countries. If the proportion living in poverty had not fallen since 1987,
a further 215 million people would be living in extreme poverty
today.

(1300)

The very poorest countries now represent less than 8%
of the world's population, compared with just over 45% in 1970. That is quite
amazing. In countries that have embraced the opportunities created by global
economic integration, strong economic growth has been the result, which of
course decreases poverty.

Indeed, most progress has taken place in developing
countries that have refined their policies, institutions and infrastructure and
opened the doors to create investment. During the 1990s their growth in GDP per
person was 5% a year compared with 2% for rich countries. This is
amazing.

The fact is that globalization is leading to an
economic boom or what economists call convergent growth, where the growth in
developing countries that have embraced globalization is fast enough to narrow
the gap with the leading economies. If we want to find an innovative solution
for the international development corporation, I suggest that it would be
crucial for us to recreate CIDA, with sound private investment policies being
the key to its development purposes.

To do this, we need to be thoughtful about re-mandating
CIDA, not throwing more money to an institution that is having marginal
success. The mandate of CIDA must be fundamentally reformed. First, CIDA must
function effectively as a conventional humanitarian relief agency, working with
international and non-governmental organizations to deliver immediate
assistance. Let me acknowledge the excellent work NGOs are doing in addressing
the immediate humanitarian and social problems arising in the short term. I am
of course talking about the AIDS issue and food shortages and, in the case of
Afghanistan, the victims of the brutal regime and war.

Sadly, much of CIDA's social engineering priorities are
preventing the agency from delivering effective and functional aid. Even the
Minister for International Cooperation has admitted that CIDA has only a 20%
success rate with its functions. This must change.

The October 2000 report of the auditor general was
critical of CIDA's bureaucratic programs. He reported that CIDA did not comply
with treasury board contracting policy or the government's contracting
relations. He went on to state:

The terms and conditions for grants
and contributions related to the Geographic programs are very general and
provide no direction on how and when to use contribution agreements...CIDA's
use of contribution agreements to select executing agencies often varied from
its stated internal policies or practices.

This is of considerable concern since the geographic
programs, which include Africa, constitute about 40% of CIDA's total
budget.

The only effective solution before us to increase the
private capital flow to the developing world is through a continuous promotion
of globalization at this particular juncture. That is why I have been vocal for
the opening of new development around the world trade negotiations next month
in Qatar.

The Canadian Alliance feels it is Canada's
responsibility to support international development and we agree with this
concept, but we think it is irresponsible at this stage to call for a 0.7%
increase when there is a need for expenditure in other areas at this given
time. We feel this is a vague goal with no precise, laid out timelines or
anything so it is difficult for us to support.

(1305)

Mrs.
Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member
whether or not he is aware of Canada's assistance in other areas that do not
fall directly under what we call the international assistance envelope, such as
debt forgiveness to some of the poorer countries in the world or to Pakistan,
for instance.

Is the hon. member aware of this and is he supportive
of Canada forgiving debt to 11 of the 17 poorest countries in the world and the
$700 million that it represents? Is the hon. member supportive of Canada
forgiving $447 million of debt to Pakistan? What that would represent is that
it frees up $16 million per year, that instead of Pakistan reimbursing $16
million a year, it is forgiven if it uses that money for social development
within the country, whether it be for basic human needs or education, health
and those kinds of things. Is he aware of that and is he supportive of
that?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai:
Mr. Speaker, yes, I am very well aware of that. What I
find funny about this is that this was in response to a humanitarian crisis
that was taking place. While the member very proudly talks about the Pakistan
issue, it just happened and was a reflection of the Afghanistan issue. It was
not a well thought out or well laid out plan. Of course maybe she is also aware
that under the IMF there are certain conditions that countries have to meet for
debt forgiveness. The conditions are laid out. The responsibility under those
conditions has been thrown onto the governments that need to pay these debts.
They have to come up and show responsibility. We cannot write blank
cheques.

Therefore, yes, I am supportive of the programs that
the IMF has come out with and that have laid down quite clearly the conditions.
I must tell my colleague from the other side that there are very few countries
that at this point have actually met those conditions, because they have to go
through a structural change. The idea behind the structural change is that they
take the responsibility for their nation of governing.

We know that in the past government to government aid
has been very ineffective, especially in those countries, so we need to be very
careful when we are throwing this money around. In reference to Pakistan, which
I did not say, that is not a long thought out plan. That has just happened
because of the Afghanistan war. We have been calling for a comprehensive
package and that is one step forward in going in that direction.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague, the
Canadian Alliance member.

First, I am convinced he will support this issue just
like Mike Moore did. The WTO official said “If only northern countries would
open up their commercial borders, they would generate increased wealth in the
southern countries.”

Does the member agree with that? Also, does he not
agree that this could distribute wealth more evenly but also concentrate it
further?

Second, is my colleague aware of the fact that other
countries like Denmark and the Netherlands have reached the 0.7% objective? In
Denmark alone, international aid stands at 1.06% of GDP, whereas in Canada it
is 0.25%. Is this not reason enough for the member to support the
motion?

[English]

Mr. Deepak Obhrai:
Mr. Speaker, I was with my colleague in Brussels for
the least developed poor countries conference and both of us heard quite
clearly the call of the developing countries for more access to being part of
the world trade system. I have alluded to that in my speech. That is one of the
most important routes to the long term sustainability of development in those
countries. Yes, in the long term I think that is what has been proven to take
so many people out of poverty, as the report in Australia has indicated. I
agree very much that this would be the key route for this issue.

While the member says that it would be more
concentrated, I think he means that it would not trickle down to the general
populace. In my opinion the more we open the free trade market the more equal a
distribution of money will take place because at the end of the day the money
will not fall into the hands of the government or into the areas where it is
misused but will hopefully trickle down to where it can be distributed among
more regions of the populace, as has been proven in China and in
India.

(1310)

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my
colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus to strongly support the motion
which has been put forward in the House today by my colleagues from the Bloc
Quebecois.

[Translation]

I would like to congratulate the members of the Bloc
Quebecois for bringing forward this important motion.

[English]

September 11 was a day of unbelievable tragedy and
anguish as we saw over 6,000 people die in the crimes against humanity involved
in the terrorist attacks on New York, on Washington and in Pennsylvania. We in
the New Democratic Party continue to mourn the tragic loss of those victims, to
pay tribute to the people involved in the rescue effort and of course to do
everything we can to bring to justice the perpetrators of these crimes against
humanity.

As well, September 11 was a day on which 30,000
children around this planet died of preventable disease and hunger. UNICEF has
reminded us that each and every day on this planet 30,000 children are dying of
preventable disease and hunger, on September 11, on September 12, on September
13 and on every single day since then. There is no CNN, no publicity, but there
is death, despair, famine and hopelessness. Five thousand children died in Iraq
last month because of the impact of sanctions on that country.

Today we, along with the Bloc Quebecois, are calling
upon the government to increase significantly the level of Canada's commitment
to international aid. Certainly when we look at the current levels of aid,
Canada's performance has been nothing short of shameful. Not that many years
ago when the Liberals first took office in 1993, Canada was number 5 or 6 among
the 22 nations of the OECD. By 1999, after years of savage cuts by the
Liberals, we had dropped to number 12. Last year we were number 17 out of 22
countries in the OECD.

As Roy Culpeper, the president of the North-South
Institute, said very clearly just this month in a document he submitted to the
Standing Committee on Finance for the prebudget consultations:

Mr.
Chairman, I will reiterate my remarks to (the Minister for International
Cooperation) at her consultations last week on CIDA's new directions. I said to
her that Canada should be ashamed of this abysmal performance. Certainly, if
they were still alive and with us today, prime ministers Pearson and Trudeau
would both be astonished and terribly disappointed at the state of
affairs.

Our commitment as Canadians should be to meet the
target of 0.7% for the ODA/GNP ratio, which was established, by the way, by
Prime Minister Pearson. In order to meet that we should be working to get to
the halfway mark of 0.35% within the next five years. The parliamentary
secretary has said that they are increasing the level of aid and there will be
more coming, but the fact of the matter is that the Canadian Council for
International Cooperation has made it very clear that if we are to meet that
target of 0.35%, which is after all only halfway to the goal we have committed
ourselves to, it will require an annual increase of $400 million in each of the
next five years.

That is what we are calling for as a minimum in order
to get us on the road to meeting those commitments. Other countries can and
have done far better, as others have pointed out. The Scandinavian countries,
for example, Sweden, Norway and Denmark along with the Netherlands, have all
consistently exceeded the UN target of 0.7% of GNP: Sweden at 0.7%, Norway at
0.91%, Denmark at 1% and the Netherlands at 0.8%.

(1315)

Until recently we were actually falling further and
further behind every year. If it was imperative that we increase our aid before
September 11, it is even more so today.

As has been pointed out by the World Bank recently, we
risk a dramatic increase in the level of poverty in the wake of the September
11 terrorist attacks on the United States. These terrorist attacks will hurt
economic growth in developing countries worldwide this year and next year. As
many as 10 million more people will be condemned to live in poverty next year.
It will hamper the fight against childhood diseases and malnutrition. This is
all in a preliminary economic assessment that was released by the World Bank on
October 1 this year. Even before September 11 the bank had predicted an
economic slowdown, that growth in developing countries would fall as a result
of slowdowns in the United States, Japan and Europe.

We know of course that the impact of September 11 on
wealthier countries means that there will be a decline in their level of
spending as well.

The worst hit area will be Africa where, in addition to
the possible increases in poverty of two to three million people as a result of
lower growth and incomes, a further two million people may be condemned to live
on below a dollar a day due to the effects of falling commodity prices. The 300
million poor people in sub-Saharan Africa are particularly vulnerable because
most countries there have absolutely no safety nets whatsoever. Poor households
certainly do not have any savings to cushion bad times. Half the additional
child deaths worldwide are likely to be in Africa. That is the area which has
already been hardest hit by the epidemic of HIV-AIDS.

Again, in the aftermath of September 11 we must do far,
far more. Gerry Barr on behalf of the Canadian Council for International
Co-operation pointed out just this week that it is imperative that there be a
significant increase in Canadian aid spending following the events of September
11. He points out that the shock waves of September 11 are likely to devastate
the global south.

Foreign direct investment is down and is likely to go
even lower. Export commodity prices, on which the economies of many developing
countries depend, are anticipated to fall further. Recession in the markets of
the developed world, including in Canada, means fewer sales for the developing
world and declining revenues for them as well.

We are also very concerned that with the focus in the
budget on security measures, international aid and other anti-poverty measures
not be squeezed out as a result. We do not want to see Canada's aid spending
become yet another casualty of the war on terrorism.

[Translation]

It would be a shame to see the Canadian aid budget fall
victim to the war on terrorism. War, conflicts and emergency situations are
threats to global security.

The end of hostilities must lead to the first steps
towards peace. Peace will only be possible through development, the even
distribution of resources and social agreements which, beyond the military
action, allow the people to establish security for all those who live on this
planet.

I would like to mention the constant efforts of the
member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, who has worked relentlessly in favour of
more justice, more fairness and a better distribution of wealth between rich
countries and poor countries. Since the beginning, he has spoken about the
terrible impact of co-operative globalization. I want to thank him for his work
on this important issue, which led to this motion by the Bloc Quebecois.

(1320)

[English]

The motion of my friends in the Bloc also speaks about
the importance of increasing the level of Canada's humanitarian aid in
Afghanistan.

The situation in Afghanistan is absolutely devastating.
It is a humanitarian crisis. Already more than 20 years of war have devastated
Afghanistan, destroyed its economy and displaced huge numbers of civilians,
including children. Already before September 11 Afghanistan was facing its most
severe drought in years. The situation is only going to continue to
deteriorate.

Aid delivery is hampered due to this terrible political
situation and, I might add, due to the bombing by the United States. We have
seen that a number of bombs have already hit Red Cross warehouses. We have seen
that too many innocent civilians are dying as a result of the bombing campaign.
In a country which is already facing massive challenges of de-mining, one of
the countries that already has more mines than anywhere else in the world, we
have seen that shamefully, the United States is continuing to use cluster bombs
in its bombing campaign.

Six million people are dependent on food and emergency
aid already in Afghanistan. Chronic instability and conflict have already
displaced much of the population. They are fleeing the terror of the Taliban
regime but they are also fleeing from the bombing. With winter months
approaching, children in particular are going to be susceptible to the harsh
climate without the necessary provisions for warmth. This five million or six
million people is the equivalent of the entire population of Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba that are fleeing as refugees. As Nadine Grant, the
director of programs for Save the Children Canada, said recently, “The crisis
looming in Afghanistan has the potential to become the worst humanitarian
situation in the world”.

The Afghan people are already suffering the devastating
effects of a three year drought. The emergency crisis for Afghani children is
overwhelming. Three million Afghanis are already dependent on NGOs for food. It
is estimated that an additional three million people will also need food
assistance this winter. Two hundred and fifty-seven children out of every one
thousand die before their fifth birthday. It is one of the worst levels of
infant mortality in the world. There are currently 900,000 internally displaced
people living in Afghanistan. There are approximately 50,000 children working
in Kabul to support their families. In the north, as I mentioned earlier, there
has been near total crop failure in 1999 and 2000. An estimated 10 million live
mines are still buried in Afghanistan, placing children in most
danger.

We join today in pleading with our government to do far
more than it has already done to respond to this humanitarian crisis in
Afghanistan. So far, Canada's contribution has been approximately $16 million
Canadian. Norway, a country of under five million people, has contributed over
$80 million. Sweden has contributed over $60 million. The Netherlands has
contributed over $50 million. We as Canadians can and should do far
more.

It is also important that we recognize that in tackling
global poverty it is not good enough simply to increase levels of aid. We have
also to do far more to cancel the debts of the poorest countries of the world.
In fact, the proposal of the Canadian Ecumenical Jubilee Initiative to have the
debt of the world's poorest countries cancelled has been one of the most
important priorities for some time. Canada has not done nearly enough in this
regard. We cancelled the debt of some of the poorest countries but we have not
gone far enough.

This debt is a crushing burden on developing countries.
It is the most obvious expression of their poverty. The indebtedness of the
south condemns millions of people to lives of destitution. In fact the debt
load of the heavily indebted poor countries is such that they have to use their
meagre financial resources to make payments on their debts and they can no
longer spend that money to meet the basic needs of their
populations.

(1325)

We join in calling for the objective of CIDA to be not
just poverty reduction, but poverty eradication. It would not take a lot. In
fact it has been estimated by the UN secretary general that some $40 billion
worldwide would be what it would take to meet the needs of the world's poorest
citizens.

Debt reduction and opening up the markets of developed
countries to the products of the poorest countries is also essential,
particularly agricultural products, textiles and clothing. These are the
products that they depend upon for their survival, their economic
self-sufficiency. Too often our doors are slammed shut. We could get rid of
these tariff barriers at a minimal cost to Canadians but this would mean a huge
difference in the lives of the poorest around this planet.

I would like to take a moment as well, because the WTO
meeting in Doha is coming up, to appeal to our government to recognize that we
have to be doing a lot more within the context of the trade agenda to respond
to global poverty. Structural adjustment programs which have been forced on
developing countries by the World Bank, the IMF and other international
financial institutions has simply increased the gap between rich and poor in
those countries. It has added to the level of poverty in those countries.

The WTO agenda and the agenda of the FTAA would
exacerbate poverty and would drive more peasants and small farmers off their
land. They simply cannot compete against the heavily subsidized agricultural
products which are flooding their countries from wealthy countries like the
United States and elsewhere.

We have to put poverty and its elimination front and
centre on the global trade agenda. That means also that we have to look at the
impact of TRIPS agreements. These are the agreements that give huge powers to
multinational pharmaceutical companies.

I would hope that the Bloc, in addition to calling for
an increase in the level of aid, would recognize that we have to stop pandering
to the multinational pharmaceutical companies which are holding the poorest of
the poor up to ransom for their patent rights. In South Africa, Brazil, India
and elsewhere these pharmaceutical companies are demanding that they have the
right to protect their patents even if it means additional tens of thousands of
millions of lives lost in the fight against HIV-AIDS, malaria and other
preventable diseases.

Canada should be playing a far more active role in
speaking out against the current TRIPS agreement. Instead, the Minister for
International Trade says that he supports that agreement.

There are many areas in which the battle against
poverty can be fought. It can be fought within the context of trade deals and
not moving ahead on a new round for the WTO. Developing countries have said
they want to deal with some outstanding implementation issues of the existing
WTO before we even consider moving ahead on new deals. It means challenging
corporate powers within existing trade deals such as the powers given under
chapter 11 of NAFTA which the government seems to want to extend throughout the
hemisphere in the FTAA.

Nelson Mandela has said that security for a few is
insecurity for all. Today, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic
Party, we want to support this motion.

We appeal to the government to significantly increase
levels of aid to work toward meeting that target of 0.7% of GDP, to meeting the
interim target of 0.35% within the next three to five years, making far more
aid available immediately to meet the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan,
ending the destructive and illegal U.S. led bombing campaign in Afghanistan,
and forgiving the debts of the poorest countries and restructuring global
trading schemes to ensure that they put people, the environment and tackling
poverty against corporate profit.

(1330)

Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State
(Asia-Pacific), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the speech of
the hon. member who started by alluding to the unprecedented tragedy in New
York. Of course we lament the loss of innocent lives which will forever remain
silent. That silence can never be broken. We lament the absence of smiles in
the families of the bereaved, smiles we know will take a long time to come
back. Yet at the end the member spoke about ending the war against
terrorism.

The tool we have chosen to go after terrorists in that
part of the world is a coalition of nations. If the member could suggest
another avenue other than a military approach at this time, let him say it. The
terrorists will not surrender. They will not come out and say here we are, put
us in jail, execute us. We must make a distinction. We must pursue the
terrorists even if it means using military might because in the end it will
mean peace, security and stability in that part of the world.

To the issue of the negotiations at Doha, may it please
the House to know that I have just returned from the meeting of APEC, the Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation group of countries, in Shanghai. We announced
there that Canada has donated $9 million to help developing countries
participate meaningfully so they will know their rights as they negotiate their
agenda at the Doha conference. It has been agreed by all APEC economies that
the agenda will be on growth and development.

In addition to international aid and debt relief, the
promotion of fairer trade in the world would be an additional pillar to help
sustainable development in developing countries.

Mr. Svend Robinson:
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, the Secretary of State
for Asia-Pacific, has raised two important questions. He asked what the
alternative is to fighting against terrorism in the aftermath of September
11.

Of course every member of the House agrees that those
responsible for these crimes against humanity must be brought to justice.
However it was the parents of a young man killed in one of the World Trade
Centre towers who asked how on earth we would bring about justice by killing
more innocent victims in Afghanistan. They asked how many more innocent people
must die before we recognize that the U.S. led military strike is a disastrous
failure.

Bombs are hitting hospitals. Bombs are hitting Red
Cross warehouses. Bombs are hitting villages and killing many more innocent
victims including children. How is this bringing the perpetrators of those
terrible terrorist attacks to justice? It is not. It is creating more innocent
victims.

Humanitarian agencies and the global community have
called for at least a pause in the bombing to enable us to get desperately
needed humanitarian supplies into Afghanistan. The United States has refused.
It has said the bombing must go ahead.

We have seen this movie before. We have seen it in
Iraq. The U.S. was to go after Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Ten years later Saddam
Hussein is still very much in power in that repressive regime. What about the
people of Iraq? What about the innocent children of Iraq who are the victims of
the inhumane and genocidal sanctions? How many hundreds of thousands of people
must die? How many more innocent civilians in Afghanistan must die in this
misguided, destructive and illegal war?

The member asks what the alternatives are. The
alternatives are to work within the framework of the United Nations to
establish an international tribunal similar to the tribunals established for
Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Evidence must be placed before the
independent tribunal for those responsible to be brought to justice. If it is
necessary to have a focused enforcement action under the framework of the
United Nations to bring them to justice, so be it.

Surely we must recognize that the approach taken so far
is neither bringing the terrorists to justice nor sparing more innocent
lives.

I will say a word regarding the second part of my hon.
friend's question. He asks about Doha, Qatar and the WTO agenda. He suggests
Canada is promoting a development agenda and that it is prepared to listen to
the poorest countries. The leaders of those countries said in their declaration
in Zanzibar earlier this year that they do not want a new round of the WTO.
They said they want to deal with a number of outstanding critical problems
under the existing provisions of the WTO.

First and foremost among these is the issue of access
to pharmaceutical drugs under the TRIPS agreement. The leaders of these
countries want to see significant changes to that. The Canadian government has
refused to accept any changes at all.

We have a lot of work to do to transform the existing
inequitable terms of trade into fair trade. Rather than proceeding with a new
round on investment, procurement and other areas, let us listen to the poorest
countries in the world. Let us take steps to redistribute wealth and power from
the wealthy to the poorest as the Bloc Quebecois motion is
proposing.

Does he feel that a tax like the Tobin tax could be
another way to achieve global equalization?

Mr. Svend Robinson:
Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, absolutely. We have
long been supporters of the Tobin tax.

My hon. colleague from
Regina--Qu'Appelle
brought forward a motion to the House in support of the Tobin tax. That motion
was passed by the House a few months ago.

In principle we definitely support that tax and we are
making every possible effort in various international tribunals to promote that
tax in order, once again, to share wealth more fairly.

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by raising two
points. First, I want to inform the Chair that I will share my time with my
colleague from Fundy—Royal and, second, I want to point out the quality of the
motion by my Bloc colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.

I want to say from the outset that over the last few
weeks, since September 11, we have talked a lot about the military aspect and
the military involvement. I will not refer to the pills, but we did talk a lot
about arms.

Today, the Bloc's motion proposes fresh approach to the
problem that arose on September 11. It takes on a human aspect. It is in
reference to that that I would like to commend my Bloc Quebecois colleague.

This is not the first time we have a debate in the
House on international aid or on increasing the level of humanitarian aid.
During the 1993 election campaign, it will be remembered, the red book stated
that if the government party were elected, it would accept to increase
international aid to bring it up to the level recommended by the United
Nations.

Members in the House will not be surprised that this
did not happen. There were other elections, other speeches from the throne, and
the government kept saying that it would increase international aid. If we look
at two other examples, besides the 1993 elections, the 1999 throne speech said
that the government was committed to increasing the level of foreign aid,
developing new innovative policies, improving the lot of the poorest countries
and enhancing the standard of life of their citizens. Perhaps this was not
clear enough.

After the following elections, the House was reconvened
on January 30, 2001. About 10 months ago the government committed once again to
increase the level of foreign aid and to use these new investments to reduce
the poverty level and encourage the development of democracy.

This was the third time that the governing party talked
about this: in the 1993 red book and in two speeches of the throne. I hope this
bodes well. On average, the government introduces a bill three times before it
gets passed. It has said three times that it would increase humanitarian aid. I
remember that, when the bill on young offenders or other bills were introduced,
the first time this did not work, the government withdrew them. The second
time, it said the time was right. There were elections, the House was prorogued
and a new session was started. After the elections, it introduced the bill once
again. Is this a lack of vision? Perhaps. I hope that, after talking at least
three times about increasing international aid, the government will now do it.

That said, it must be understood that it is a huge jump
from 0.25% to 0.7%. As most of my colleagues on this side of the floor have
said, however, we do have to start looking for the light at the end of the
tunnel, start looking at an increase. My colleague from the NDP has referred to
a middle of the road solution, of 0.35%, 0.40% or 0.46%. That is where we were
in 1992. With all the talk of battling the deficit, we need to realize that the
humanitarian aid program has been slashed more than all other items in the
government's budget. Canada sees itself as a figurehead on the international
level, but it is not even preaching by example.

Today's motion proposes a new aspect to this, to ensure
that, on the eve of a budget which is coming within a few weeks—and it is
important to point that out, as has been said—the House and the government must
make an official commitment to step up international aid. One of the effects of
this, just between ourselves, moreover, would be to enhance our credibility
with other countries.

As several of my colleagues have pointed out, Canada is
lagging behind the other OECD countries. Every year, the gap increases. When we
realize that we are lagging behind the other OECD countries as far as
international aid is concerned, we have to accept that there is a very clear
consequence to this. Canada has lost some of its clout on the international
scene. If it really wants to resume its place in the international community,
as a leader for peace, sustainable development and assistance to the most
disadvantaged countries and to those faced with problems, whether natural
disasters or other problems, then we have to put our money where our mouth is.
Humanitarian aid is very important.

(1340)

Faced with deficit problems, most countries have cut
their budgets. But Canada has made the deepest cuts of all G-7 countries in
humanitarian aid. Yes, other countries made cuts, because there were problems.
Unfortunately, although I hope I am wrong, this government will probably
experience its first recession. I am anxious to see how it will handle it, but
I think it will shoot itself in the foot. After enjoying a fairly prosperous
stretch in the years since 1993, it will have to face the music, although, of
course, it is not music we would wish on it.

The House should know that countries such as Denmark
are contributing 1.06%; the Netherlands, 0.82%; Sweden, 0.81%, and so
on.

There are therefore examples. The surprising thing is
that these countries are not seeking to be leaders on the military or
peacekeeping scene. They are countries which have decided to contribute in
proportion to their collective wealth.

We want to be a leader everywhere but a look at our
humanitarian aid figures shows that we are lagging behind other countries.

Foreign aid contributes to stability. Coupled with debt
forgiveness and liberalization of trade, it can significantly reduce poverty in
developing countries, paving the way as it does for sustained economic
development.

What is more, if countries are able to crawl out from
under an unbelievable level of poverty and infant mortality, there are strong
chances that civil wars can be averted or brought to an end. There are strong
chances that these countries will really become democratic allies
internationally.

We urge the government to get with it, to support these
initiatives. As I said, the Prime Minister openly recommended at the G-8 in
Japan that industrialized countries collectively increase their foreign aid
contributions by 10%. We have yet to see this here.

We therefore hope that in the upcoming budget the
motion by the Bloc Quebecois member will have an impact, that people will
listen. If we are contributing hundreds of millions of dollars toward the fight
against terrorism in Afghanistan, we should be able to take a look at the more
global issue of humanitarian aid and ensure that Canada's contribution is
officially increased.

In conclusion, I wish to say that the internationalism
and compassion that characterized the Pearson government are a distant memory.
We are accustomed to governments of all stripes providing more support for
international development.

I hope the government will adopt this philosophy and
take the action sought by the motion.

(1345)

[English]

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to
take the floor today in support of the Bloc motion brought forth in the
aftermath of September 11 and related to the ongoing war effort against the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

I send a very clear message to our military personnel
that parliament supports the valuable role Canadian soldiers are playing in the
conflict against the draconian Taliban regime. We owe our military personnel a
huge debt of gratitude. The heinous crime which took place on September 11,
complete with its disrespect for human life and high degree of premeditation,
cannot go unchecked.

Humanitarian agencies are also gearing up for a crisis
of immense proportions that is unfolding along the borders of Afghanistan. As
of July 1, 2000, before the tragedy of September 11, Afghanis were the largest
single refugee population in the world of concern to the UN high commission for
refugees. They comprised approximately 30% of the global refugee population. In
the wake of the military strikes that began after October 7, worst case
scenarios suggest that between 5 million and 7.5 million people may flee that
country and set up camps along the borders.

With no end in sight to the U.S.-led
attack on Afghanistan, about 7.5 million Afghans lack the basic necessities to
survive the coming winter. To make matters worse, they have no government to
care for them, no countrymen with deep-enough pockets to help them through the
crisis. The families of the U.S. victims have been the recipients of incredible
generosity.

We should be very grateful for the generous spirit we
have had with respect to looking after our American cousins in that regard. He
continued:

Afghan victims have not been so
lucky. The UN has collected about $150 million. Trouble is, they figure they
need $650 million to get the people through the winter.

In the aftermath of September 11 our focus has been on
the American victims for very understandable reasons. We feel a very genuine
kinship with the Americans because they are our closest friends. Our economies
are intertwined. We travel there. We work there and families quite often
intermarry. Afghanistan is an alien place for most of us. It is rugged and
impoverished. We do not feel the same natural connectedness we have with the
Americans.

Afghanistan has endured a 22 year long civil war. It
has recorded record drought and famine during the last four years. Most of us
on this continent have been oblivious of that fact. After September 11 many
people probably opened up their atlas just to find out exactly where
Afghanistan was located and its proximity in terms of its borders and
neighbours.

Insufficient humanitarian aid is being given to Afghani
refugees along the borders and to suffering Afghanis still inside the country.
Thousands upon thousands of individuals will lose their lives from cold and
starvation. We have a moral obligation to assist and to ensure we do not read
in the history books that we allowed hundreds of thousands of individuals to
die in the midst of this conflict through no fault of their own.

Humanitarian aid is needed to provide stability in
Afghanistan. It is necessary to demonstrate that this conflict is against the
Taliban regime and not against the Afghani people. If we let people starve or
freeze to death, the Afghani people will not understand that our problem is
with the Taliban and not with them.

(1350)

Prime Minister Tony Blair stated in the aftermath of
September 11:

On the humanitarian front, we are
assembling a coalition of support for refugees in and outside Afghanistan,
which is as vital as the military coalition. We have to act for humanitarian
reasons to alleviate the appalling suffering of the Afghan people and to
deliver stability so that people from that region stay in that
region.

Canada has a vital role to play in the humanitarian
coalition just as it occupies a key place in the military coalition. We must
ensure that we reflect the same sentiments expressed by Prime Minister Blair
with respect to our role in the humanitarian reaction as well.

Where is our Canadian leadership on this pressing
matter? At its worst it has been mute; at its best it has been feeble. I
challenge the government and our Prime Minister to step up to the plate and
lead by example. They should show the world the best of our Canadian
humanitarian tradition and reputation. Canada and the Liberal government could
do more by leading by example.

[Translation]

In 1993, under a Progressive Conservative government,
Canada could boast of the highest level of international aid among G-7
countries as a percentage of its GDP.

Today, after seven years of Liberal government, Canada
ranks last.

Other governments in the west had to deal with the same
deficit problems as Canada in the early 1990s. They also had to make cuts. Of
all G-7 countries, Canada has reduced the most its international aid, unloading
its deficit problem on the back of the poorest countries in the
world.

[English]

Canada must provide foreign aid, which is a necessary
component to any foreign policy, if it wishes to be a participant in the global
economy. Foreign aid promotes stability and when used with debt forgiveness and
trade liberalization can have a real impact on poverty reduction in the third
world.

Humanitarian aid encourages sustained economic
development and helps countries realize the objective of becoming economically
self-sufficient in their own right. It introduces Canada to millions of
potential future consumers of Canadian products and helps us merge our
economies.

Foreign aid can be provided in a myriad of ways. I have
spoken out before in support of debt forgiveness programs like Jubilee 2000.
Debt forgiveness is a great idea. It removes pressures from governments and
allows them to invest in people and stop paying interest on debt that we know
they will never have the capacity to pay back.

As it increases its aid, as the motion calls for today,
Canada should look at other ways to better and more effectively take part in
these programs. For example, Canada should and must tie debt forgiveness to
countries that spend more on education and health programs than they would on
issues such as defence.

In the same way in which Canada aids Afghanistan, we
must ensure that we learn from mistakes that we have made in the past with
respect to foreign aid.

International efforts to prepare for the post-Taliban
Afghanistan are necessary. Once the battle is won against the Taliban, we need
a long term plan and commitment in the same sentiment that we had with respect
to the Marshall plan and as we had in the aftermath of World War II.

Canada and its allies have a responsibility to ensure
that the U.S. led Afghan campaign does not decimate a population already
tortured by decades of war, poverty and misery. If we are to avert the
entrenchment of hate against the west, which could remain in perpetuity, we
must have a solid commitment.

Western nations, including Canada, need to ensure that
refugee camps are adequately supported but these must be seen as temporary
solutions. The long term objective must be to return these refugees back to
their homes. This long term assistance, as we all know, will be expensive but
we need to continue our help long after the conflict ends and the headlines run
out. There must be sustained financial and political assistance. This includes
help with developing infrastructure, education and fighting against
diseases.

There has never been a more important time to increase
our aid contribution. Canada can afford it given its projected surplus for this
year. More than that, boosting aid in this time of global upheaval and war will
send a very clear signal that when we talk about the long term need to address
the poverty that breeds helplessness, anger and sometimes even terrorism, we
mean it. That is why the Progressive Conservative/DR coalition is pleased to
support the initiative brought forth by the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[S. O. 31]

* * *

(1355)

[Translation]

ADISQ Gala

The gala, hosted by the lively and unpredictable Guy A.
Lepage, was an emotion packed evening for audience and artists alike. Singers
Garou and Isabelle Boulay each came away with awards in several categories,
male and female singer of the year in particular. There was also a very fine
tribute to Claude Dubois.

I would also like to extend my congratulations to the
Laval symphony orchestra, which received the Album of the year award for its
album Mozart in the non-broadcast segment of the gala, which was held on
October 22.

These hard-working artists not only entertain us but
also express the joys and values of life. As well, they are cultural
ambassadors outside of Canada.

We have every reason to congratulate these performers
and to encourage them to continue to share their exceptional talents.

* * *

[English]

Broadcasting Act

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the 1991 Broadcasting Act will be reviewed
and it is about time. Today we have rules to give our musicians exposure on our
radios that can disqualify Canadians when they become international stars. We
have no incentives for local programming that would build bridges between
citizens especially in rural Canada.

We have the CRTC denying access to French language
programming in Quebec cable networks if the programs originate outside Quebec.
Any review of the Broadcasting Act without a serious examination of the CRTC
will be ignoring the elephant in the living room.

When the CRTC was created in 1968 only 13% of Canadian
households had cable. Even the writers of Buck Rogers could not have dreamed up
the satellites and Internet we use in the 21st century. I am concerned with the
committee decision to have minimal time for the CRTC cross-media ownership and
resulting convergence issues. The review may be like doing carpentry while
wearing boxing gloves.

* * *

(1400)

Lupus Awareness Month

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all
Canadians that October has been designated Lupus Awareness Month.

Lupus is a chronic, potentially life threatening
disease with a variety of symptoms caused by inflammation and damage in body
tissues and organs. It is estimated that lupus affects one in every 2,000
Canadians.

Medical researchers across Canada are involved in
finding the causes and a cure for this disease. This provides hope to the
people living with lupus every day. Lupus Canada is dedicated to helping
individuals with lupus, their families and caregivers by providing access to
information, support and education regardless of income, culture or
geography.

I ask members to join me in congratulating Lupus Canada
and wishing it a successful public awareness campaign for now and the
future.

* * *

SIDS Awareness Month

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, October has been designated Sudden Infant
Death Syndrome (SIDS) Awareness Month. Each week three babies in Canada die for
no apparent reason before the age of one. Sometimes referred to as crib death,
SIDS is a leading cause of death in Canada for babies between one month and one
year of age.

The Canadian Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths
is dedicated to responding to the needs of families who have experienced the
sudden, unexpected and unexplained infant death and to funding medical research
on SIDS. The foundation works in collaboration with Health Canada, the Canadian
Paediatric Society and the Canadian Institute of Child Health to provide public
awareness and education. The incidence of death due to SIDS has dropped by
almost 50% in the past few years.

This year the foundation is launching its national
awareness campaign “Every baby deserves a kiss--Let's kiss SIDS goodbye”.
During this month hundreds of volunteers will be selling chocolate lips to help
the fight against SIDS.

I ask members to join me in recognizing and
congratulating the SIDS foundation for its effort and good work.

* * *

[Translation]

Women's History Month

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the 10th
anniversary of Women's History Month. This month focuses attention on the
sustained efforts and past accomplishments of Canadian women throughout the
history of our great country.

In times of difficulty, the women of Canada and various
women's organizations such as the Fédération nationale Saint-Jean-Baptiste and
the Young Women's Christian Association continue to provide help to people in
need.

The women in these groups provided much needed support
during the two world wars and the depression, as well as at numerous other
times when needs were felt, both large and small. These groups brought together
men and women devoted to serving in Canada and elsewhere when and where there
was need.

In this International Year of the Volunteer, let us
acknowledge the role played by women in all periods of Canada's history, as
well as the positive role played by all volunteers still today.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

* * *

[English]

Meryl Matthews

Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I recognize Meryl Matthews, a friend, a
constituent and a gracious lady with a backbone of steel. Meryl was a
politician until age 75 when she retired from the school board to make more
time for bridge. She served as an outspoken city councillor and a school
trustee.

For 30 years Meryl was a member of the editorial
department of a Kamloops newspaper and was city editor for 10 years. Along with
the responsibility of these full time positions she managed a flower shop with
her husband Fred. We should note that this was long before there were gender
equity programs.

This is a woman who understands balance. She worked all
her life in her chosen career and grew fabulous roses for pleasure. Meryl
donated her fabulous rose garden to the city when she moved into an apartment a
few years ago. Everyone in Kamloops continues to enjoy them. Named a freeman of
the city in 1987, Meryl can still remember every event that shaped Kamloops,
the town where she was born 90 years ago, and describe it in accurate, concise
words. Meryl is a role model for all women.

I ask my fellow politicians to salute Meryl Matthews as
she celebrates her 90th birthday this month.

* * *

(1405)

Gemini Awards

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape
Breton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I take this occasion to speak about the
16th annual Gemini Awards that will conclude tonight at the Metro Toronto
Convention Centre's John Bassett Theatre.

The Gemini Awards are made possible by the Academy of
Canadian Cinema and Television. The first national awards presentation took
place in December 1986. Since then the event has grown in prominence and
stature to become one of the most prestigious in our country.

The Gemini Awards recognize and celebrate exceptional
achievements in all areas of the Canadian English language television industry.
They showcase the creativity, energy and talent of our many Canadian artists
and creators. I thank all those who made the Gemini Awards such a success: the
organizers, the artists and the creators without whom the awards would not be
made possible.

I ask all my colleagues to join me in congratulating
all the recipients of the 2001 Gemini Awards.

The Bloc Quebecois congratulates the recipients of 16
Félix awards presented at the televised ADISQ gala, including best female
performer, Isabelle Boulay, and best male performer, Garou. Awards also went to
Stephen Faulkner, for best writer or composer, to Michel Mpambara, for best
comedy production, and to Martin Deschamps, for best writer-composer-performer.
This year's Félix hommage went to Claude Dubois.

Congratulations to the award winners, but also to all
those who create song, music and comedy in Quebec, and to all the artisans of
our national culture.

* * *

Stamp Month

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, October is Stamp Month, and Canada Post is
taking part in a campaign to promote this activity by visiting schools and
providing libraries with materials.

To commemorate Stamp Month, Canada Post has issued four
new stamps depicting hot air balloons. These stamps commemorate the invention
of hot air balloons in 1783 by two brothers in France. These stamps were first
issued on the occasion of Gatineau's hot air balloon festival.

In October, Canada Post also released a stamp marking
the 75th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Legion.

Stamp collecting is an activity which helps increase
understanding of the world's peoples and countries, and of their
history.

* * *

[English]

Canada Post

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance):
Mr, Speaker, Canada's postal workers deserve our
appreciation for the daily job they do, particularly now under these tense and
trying times. Canada's mail handlers also deserve the best protection we can
provide.

Last week public works issued rubber gloves to protect
against disease. Friday the health minister spoke glowingly of American
equipment on order that would shake, rattle and roll our mail and then hoover
the air to search for anthrax. That is 1950s technology for our frontline
postal service like the Sea Kings in the Arabian Sea. While better than
nothing, we can do much better.

Postal workers like our military deserve better. Rubber
gloves and bone shaking buckboard technology is not the limit of Canadian
technology.

I call on the minister today to go to the advanced
electronics industry to seek out with research grants the equipment to properly
do the job. Let Canada lead in the technology to counter terrorist threats. Let
us have a made in Canada solution, eh.

* * *

[Translation]

September 11

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the events of September 11 have had an
impact on the lives of Canadians. Our values, democracy and freedom were
attacked. Because we share these values, we were affected by these
attacks.

We feel more vulnerable. However, we must not play into
the hands of the terrorists. Our actions must not be guided by fear.

We must not let the propaganda of aggressors affect us
to that extent. We must be vigilant but continue to live our lives according to
our values.

In the end, we will win.

* * *

(1410)

[English]

Poverty

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, federal New Democrats stand in support and
solidarity with Louise Gosselin and the groups who are intervening at the
Supreme Court of Canada today to argue that poor Canadians have the right to
adequate levels of social assistance.

It is appalling that the federal government is not
intervening in this historic case to defend social and economic rights for
Canadians and that four provinces, including unfortunately my own province of
British Columbia, are lining up to speak against it.

Five million Canadians live below the poverty line and
over two million Canadians do not have adequate shelter and housing. This is a
shameful record when Canada clearly has the wealth, resources and international
obligation to uphold social and economic rights.

The federal government cannot ignore this case. Nor can
the fundamental issue of growing income inequality and poverty in Canada be
ignored. We call on the Minister of Justice and the federal government to
fulfill their duty under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by
ensuring that poor Canadians have economic security and dignity.

* * *

[Translation]

Institut Nazareth et
Louis-Braille

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, since 1861, the Institut Nazareth et
Louis-Braille has helped blind youth. The first French language establishment
of its kind in North America, today the Institut Nazareth et Louis-Braille has
the greatest concentration of specialized resources for the visually impaired
and the blind in Quebec.

There is a great need for this kind of organization. I
have a three year old child whose vision was just reassessed from low vision to
blind. My family therefore needs the services of such an organization. The
Institut Nazareth et Louis-Braille is celebrating its 140th anniversary this
year.

This organization has helped others for 140 years with
rehabilitation services and other state of the art services, and now it is our
turn to help it with our support. We must, like the institute, react with
respect, courtesy and fairness toward our visually impaired and blind brothers,
sisters, parents and children.

The Bloc Quebecois commends the Institut Nazareth et
Louis-Braille for its remarkable work.

* * *

Celiac Disease

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay
(Madawaska--Restigouche, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House and all
Canadians that the month of October has been designated Celiac Awareness
Month.

Celiac disease is a condition in which the absorptive
surface of the small intestine is damaged by a substance called gluten. This
results in an inability of the body to absorb the nutrients necessary for
growth and good health. According to current research statistics, close to one
person in 200 may be affected by celiac disease, although most of them are not
aware of it.

The Canadian Celiac Association is a national
organization dedicated to providing services and support to persons with this
disease.

I invite everyone to join with me in congratulating the
many volunteers of the Canadian Celiac Association.

* * *

[English]

Trade

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, it is time that the government took a
serious look at some type of North American trade perimeter. North American
internal security is threatened and more resources are required at the border.
We could supply those resources for security if we were not doing double duty
at the border checking both security and trade.

It is time to ask why a container that is checked and
sealed in Halifax, Vancouver, New York City or Mexico City needs to be stopped
and checked again when it crosses the border regardless of its destination. The
dollars freed up by this so-called trade perimeter could then be concentrated
on protecting the security of the individual partners and not curtailing
trade.

I do not expect the government to show leadership on
this issue until Canadian public opinion forces it to do so. However it is past
time that the positive and the negative aspects of such an idea were debated
and assessed in parliament.

* * *

Forest Industry

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the pine beetle infestation in British
Columbia can easily be classified as a natural disaster. One would think the
federal Liberals are concerned about the economic impact on B.C.'s forest
industry, which provides thousands of jobs and produces billions of tax revenue
for the federal coffers.

The federal Liberals have known about this problem for
years now but have done absolutely nothing to help the people of British
Columbia in the face of this disaster.

In a recent publication entitled “The State of Canada's
Forests” Natural Resources Canada devotes a precious three sentences to the
pine beetle disaster out of 112 pages, and even then grossly underestimates the
magnitude of the problem.

Today I again call on the federal Liberals to drop
their historic disdain for British Columbians and give us some of our forest
industry tax dollars back to help us in our time of crisis.

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Oral Questions]

* * *

(1415)

[English]

Bioterrorism

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, bioterrorism is a top of the mind issue
for Canadians today. Just this weekend CTV showed us how easy it is for someone
to walk into a store to buy toxic chemicals.

What is the health minister doing to make certain that
toxic chemicals do not get in the hands of people who have bad
motives?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, obviously it is an effort that must be
undertaken by all of us, by all levels of government and by responsible
Canadians across the country.

For our part we are working closely with provincial
officials and with chief medical officers of health to get messages out into
communities about being watchful and about taking the usual precautionary
steps.

At the same time we are reassuring Canadians that these
threats in Canada are remote, but obviously we must be prudent all the
time.

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians really want reassurance and not
just rhetoric, so let me make a suggestion to the minister. Health Canada could
send an advisory to all manufacturers and retailers of these toxic chemicals
which might say to them: be aware of someone who comes in without a purchase
order that they do not know and let the authorities know about it.

Will the minister take such a step, an advisory to all
those individuals so that we are sure that toxic chemicals do not get into the
hands of people who should not have them?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take the member's
suggestion under advisement and to work with him and members of his party if
they have useful suggestions.

Obviously our caucus is also focusing on these issues.
I think it is important that all of us do everything we can to raise public
awareness, to be watchful and to do everything that is prudent in these
circumstances.

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister says that he is willing to
listen to suggestions. I can tell him that there have been a lot of suggestions
from the official opposition that have gone into the ether.

On this particular suggestion, on toxic chemicals, it
is pretty obvious that the minister has not yet considered the suggestion. I
would ask him again for an advisory to go out to all the manufacturers and
sellers of toxic chemicals to heighten the awareness for Canadians. This would
be reassuring, not just a photo op.

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to leave the impression that
the government has not acted already on this and other areas to increase public
awareness and to advise people involved to take precautions.

I am trying to signal that this is not a partisan
matter. It is a matter that involves the health of Canadians. If the official
opposition wishes to change its position and be constructive, we would be
delighted to accept constructive proposals from all sides.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are asking what help they could
expect if there were a chemical or bioterror attack. The World Health
Organization says that there are 44 possible bioterror agents and 25 chemical
agents.

The health minister has set aside $5.5 million to
stockpile antibiotics and pharmaceuticals. That is barely 18 cents per
Canadian.

Why does a postage stamp cost more than medicine on
hand for Canadians to prepare for bioterror?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we should be careful now not to veer from
constructive suggestions to fearmongering.

Let us be serious about this. We have identified
appropriate, prudent targets as we accumulate medications. Our money goes not
only for medications but also for training of frontline workers so they will
know what to look for and will be able respond quickly. It goes to reinforcing
our national network of laboratories so we can test substances and rule in and
rule out quickly. It also goes for equipment that may be needed and protocols
that are appropriate.

We are taking the right steps and we will continue to
do what is required to protect the health security of Canadians.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that the health minister
has set aside just $5.5 million for medicine, yet the smallpox vaccine he is
talking about will cost over $100 million. Experts tell us that at least eight
other vaccines on hand are highly desirable.

The minister's numbers just do not add up. Does he
really have a plan Canadians can count on?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the medications we have accumulated are
antibiotics. They are being stockpiled in order to make sure we are ready in
the unlikely event that they are needed.

We have a plan and at the moment we are doing
everything that is prudently required to protect the health security of
Canadians. Should circumstances change, then we will change accordingly, but at
this moment we are doing what is appropriate to protect the health of
Canadians.

* * *

(1420)

[Translation]

Terrorism

Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, just days after the bombings in
Afghanistan had begun, the U.S. secretary of defence said that they were
running out of military targets.

A few weeks later, with the number of civilian
casualties rising, Donald Rumsfeld is now saying that the war effort will be
long, very long.

Considering that the bombings have probably hit all the
military targets, that the response should now take into account the fate of
the civilian population—and should have taken it into account from the
beginning—is Canada advocating a reassessment of the military strategy used so
far to counter terrorism?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, civilian populations in Afghanistan are
not being targeted by the alliance against terrorism.

The fight has only been going on for one month. We must
continue to fight the Taliban and bin Laden's network.

Again, I am asking for the continuing support of all
the parties in this House.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we are not of course questioning the
response, but I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that it is the U.S. secretary
of defence who said that they were running out of targets. The second phase of
this response is about to begin with ground troops.

Is it not time, before entering this new phase, for
Canada to ask the UN to assess military operations?

The response must continue but, as the Prime Minister
said, we will not give a blank cheque. How can Canada play a role in this
response with the agreement of its allies?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Canadian forces are an
integral part of the alliance against terrorism, the Taliban and bin Laden's
network. We are constantly in contact with our allies, particularly the United
States and Great Britain.

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, with Ramadan approaching, the bombing of
Afghanistan as well as the degenerating conflict in the Middle East are causing
agitation and provoking demonstrations in many Muslim countries.

Does the Prime Minister not fear that the conflagration
will spread to countries bordering Afghanistan, countries that might try to
finish off the work begun by Osama bin Laden and his accomplices?

[English]

Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, certainly the Government of Canada is
concerned that citizens are involved. We are doing everything we can in our
role to stand with our friends and allies, the United States and Britain, to
make sure we defend the interests of Canada and the interests of the free
world.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this lack of response is worrisome, at the
very least.

Are the accidental bombing of civilians, and the
comments made by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to the effect that
they may not get bin Laden and that, in any case, he has a number of
accomplices with significant sums of money in 50 to 60 different banks not
cause for concern and full justification for a call for a UN sponsored
conference, before the world becomes further embroiled in this war?

[English]

Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada has long been a nation dedicated to
peace and security. We have demonstrated this commitment time and time again
through many means, including military. It helps define us as a
nation.

By flushing out terrorists in Afghanistan, we are
working to create a world that is safer and more secure for all nations, for
all people, including Afghanis. We are fighting against a force that threatens
our freedoms, our democracies and our very way of life. Canada will stand with
our allies.

* * *

The Economy

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, our economy is in trouble. Scotiabank
economists predict the loss of 20,000 jobs per month for at least the next six
months. What is the government's response so far? To do nothing. What is the
government's response to new infrastructure investment? None. What is the
government's response to improving employment insurance. More studies. What is
the government's response to health and social housing? No new
money.

The finance minister has been able to find money to
fight terrorism. Will the finance minister also find money to fight the erosion
and the impoverishment of our communities?

(1425)

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP simply has to take a
look at the programs the government has put in place and listen to the very
substantial announcements we have made. The national child benefit is now at a
record level. Our transfers to the provinces for health care and education are
at record levels as is equalization payments that the provinces use to
establish common services across the country.

The fact is we have put substantial stimulus into the
economy and that is one of the reasons Canadians are coming through this
downturn better than the United States. We will continue on this
path.

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is ignoring the
crisis that is unfolding. Unemployment is already rising dramatically. In
September alone job losses have been horrendous. Jobs in the accommodation and
food services have gone down 31,000; in recreation, down 20,000; in
transportation, down 20,000; and in agriculture, down 5,000.

Canadians want security on the international front but
they also want economic security on the home front. We are ready to support the
government with extra resources for security. Will the government support
Canadians with extra resources for human services and community
infrastructure?

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we have to be very
worried and every job loss is of great concern to the government. The hon.
member knows that in the month of September Canada actually created 20,000 more
jobs, which most other countries are not in the process of doing.

At the same time, we are dealing with those areas of
economic security, such as the absolute necessity of keeping our borders open,
and taking a look at ways in which we can make that more efficient.

We are going through a very difficult time. There is no
doubt about that. The government, the private sector, the opposition and all
the communities in the country have to work very hard at that, and we will to
continue to do that.

* * *

Trade

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, the overly ambitious Minister of Industry
is looking for a billion dollars for hooking up the Internet. Meanwhile traffic
at our borders is in chaos. He should know that we desperately need to invest
in up to date technology that will enhance security and keep the billion
dollars a day of trade flowing between our border and the U.S.
border.

Why has this leadership hopeful not done his job and
insisted on the essentials?

Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if we thought the member opposite was
asking a serious question that warranted a serious response, we would certainly
give her one.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, certainly keeping the borders open is a
serious question. We would hope the minister would treat it as such.

The U.S. is spending $100 million for new security
technology at their northern border. Meanwhile Canada's industry minister is
trumpeting his ability to get a billion dollars out of his leadership rival's
pocket for his pet Internet project, while downloading the border issue as an
infrastructure problem that the provinces should solve.

Why does the industry minister insist on pursuing his
pet project at the expense of securing freer trade for Canadians?

Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House happen to
believe that Canadians who live in rural and northern parts of this country
have a right to expect the services of the national government. We on this side
of the House happen to believe that Canadians who live in rural and northern
parts of this country have an opportunity to contribute to Canada's wealth if
they have the tools necessary to do the job. We make no apologies for
that.

Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this weekend the Minister of Industry
showed a sudden interest in clearing up border lineups. Perhaps jealous of the
spotlight other Liberal leadership candidates are getting, the minister weighed
in in favour of transforming the Windsor-Detroit train tunnel into a truck
route.

While we certainly support investments in
infrastructure, I would ask the Minister of Industry if he has plans to improve
spending at all border crossings or only the ones where Borealis Capital has an
interest?

Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the member is telling us that the free
flow of goods, services and materials across our border, a border that handles
$1.9 billion worth of business every single day for the people of Canada and
the United States, is not a priority for him, I can tell him it is a very large
priority for members on this side of the House.

(1430)

Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, minister on the run. Borealis Capital owns
50% of the rail tunnel. Among the senior executives at Borealis Capital are the
chief fundraiser for the industry minister's leadership campaign, Steve Hudson
and his campaign chair, David MacInnes.

Will the minister admit the obvious; that his support
for this project put him in a clear and ugly conflict of interest?

Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have seldom heard a more empty premise
to a question: The notion that any minister or any member for that matter on
this side of the House who is interested in making sure the border works well
is a conflict of interest. The member opposite should really do his homework
and try and dream up a better question. That one is completely
nonsensical.

* * *

[Translation]

International Aid

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is currently
preparing a budget. During the G-20's last meeting, the minister also talked
about international equalization.

In order to adequately meet existing needs, the UN
recommends that countries allocate 0.7% of their GDP to international aid. In
the year 2000, Canada only allocated 0.25% of its GDP to international aid.

Given the current extraordinary circumstances, we know
that military spending will increase. Will the minister show consistency and
increase international assistance in his next budget?

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if we look at the situation, and given the
importance of trade and globalization, it is crystal clear that, in order for
this to work, underdeveloped countries must be helped.

These countries need infrastructure programs. They need
help for health and education. In fact, this was the object of the consensus
achieved in Montreal one year ago by the G-20. We will definitely discuss this
issue and continue to promote it.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Canada agreed to write off part of
Pakistan's debt to help it deal with refugees, but this measure will not be
enough to counter the effects of war on Afghan people.

In this context, does the Minister of Finance intend to
substantially increase the moneys earmarked for international assistance to
Afghanistan, over and above the $16 million already allocated?

Mrs.
Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting
question.

If the hon. member had done his homework, he would know
that the Government of Canada has granted $16 million in international aid to
Afghanistan since September 11. This is in addition to the money that Canada is
giving to Afghanistan for international aid. For this year alone, it is around
$28 million.

Canada has been there for Afghanistan. For the past 10
years, we have given in excess of $150 million. We are there today and we will
be there tomorrow.

Does the Minister of Finance agree with his cabinet
colleague that his billion dollar Internet hookup scheme is as essential as
health care, national security and maintaining a surplus?

Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, the member is now making up quotes
to suit his question, which is not unusual because he has developed a pattern
for doing that in the House. He did not hear me just say what he quoted a
minute ago.

Second, yes I happen to believe that getting people who
live in rural and northern Canada online and able to access the Internet in a
meaningful way is important in building a modern economy.

The Alliance may believe that only those who live in
urban centres should get access to technology, I do not.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we believe there is such a thing as
budgetary priorities. Now economists are saying that we may be heading toward a
deficit next year.

The provinces are demanding more money for health care.
We have an urgent need for new spending in national security and defence. What
is the government's response? It is to spend billions, $6 billion more, on pork
and corporate welfare as part of the industry minister's wish list.

Why does the finance minister not get his priorities
straight and just say no to new discretionary spending while we are fighting a
recession and a war on terrorism?

(1435)

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government has made it very clear that
it will protect our transfers to the provinces for health care and education.
It has made it very clear that the involvement with our universities in
research and development will continue. The government has made it very clear
that the personal tax cuts, the corporate tax cuts and the increase in the
child tax benefit will continue.

The fact is the government has made it very clear that
it will operate within its constraints. We will do that because we are indeed
building for the future of our country.

* * *

[Translation]

Finance

Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, with his next budget coming up, the
Minister of Finance is singing the usual tune: he does not anticipate a very
large surplus.

But figures from his own department show a surplus of
$11.1 billion for the first five months of the fiscal year. Even in the worst
case scenario, it will stand at $13 billion by year's end.

Will the minister admit that playing down the size of
the annual surplus will create a worse problem than usual this year, since he
must support the economy, and he has the means, provided he is telling the
truth?

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is true that we had a surplus of $11
billion in July. This is a huge cushion.

But the member must know that there was a slowdown in
the third quarter. He must also know that the world changed dramatically and
profoundly on September 11.

Is the member unaware of the terrible impact of
September 11 on the global economy, including on Canada?

Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the events the
minister has just mentioned. What we want are targeted investments to support
the economy.

Will the minister drop his strategy of deliberately
underestimating his surplus, give us the real figures, and adopt a balanced
approach, which includes targeted investments to support the
economy?

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a balanced approach is the very approach
the government is taking. Now, if the member has any suggestions to make,
perhaps he could speak to his colleague, the finance critic, or attend the
meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance. I am looking forward with great
enthusiasm to the report of the Standing Committee on Finance. Perhaps the
member should attend the odd meeting.

* * *

[English]

Immigration

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this weekend the immigration minister
revealed that fully 40% of refugee claimants are from the United
States.

Signing a safe third country agreement with the United
States would allow immigration officials to focus on the other 60% who are not
from the United States. When asked if an agreement of this nature was a top
priority, the minister said on the weekend that she did not think
so.

Why will the minister not take this important step and
make the security of Canadians a top priority?

Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the security of Canadians is a top
priority for the government. That is why we are working very closely with out
neighbour, the United States, to ensure that we do everything we can to speed
legitimate traffic at the borders and stop those who have no legitimate reason
to enter either Canada or the United States.

I want to assure the member opposite that there are a
number of things we are discussing to achieve that goal.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, why will this minister not really work
with the United States and sign a safe third country agreement with it? It is
needed. This would prevent people who should claim in the United States from
having to claim in Canada instead where the system is much more lax. Still,
this weekend the immigration minister said it was not a priority with her
government.

Why will the minister not make this a priority to
ensure the security of Canadians and their jobs?

Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is once again equating
refugee claimants with security threats and that is simply wrong.

There are many things we are discussing with the United
States. However, the number one top priority is to discuss security issues.
That is what we are doing.

* * *

Foreign Affairs

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton
West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is
currently in the Middle East, with a visit to Iran. Given the events of the
past six and a half weeks, could the parliamentary secretary to the minister
please inform us of the purpose of this trip?

(1440)

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the visit of the Minister of Foreign
Affairs aims at seeking the widest possible coalition in the effort to fight
terrorism and to increase world security. The best way to do that is by direct
engagement of key middle eastern regional states such as Iran. This is the
first time a Canadian minister of foreign affairs has visited Iran in almost a
decade.

As an important regional country, Iran will be key as a
major contributor to the effort to combat terrorism.

* * *

National Defence

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime
Minister. The United States is dropping cluster bombs in Afghanistan from B-52
bombers, despite the fact that the Red Cross has called for the banning of
cluster bombs which cause so many casualties among innocent civilians,
especially among children. There are 10 million live landmines in Afghanistan
today after 20 years of war.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will
Canada, as a member of the U.S. led military coalition, condemn in the
strongest possible terms the use of cluster bombs in the United States led
bombing campaign in Afghanistan?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that what the hon. member
is alleging is accurate. I will check into it.

As I said to another hon. member earlier in question
period, it is not the purpose or intent of the coalition to target civilians.
This continues to be the policy for Canada, and as far as I am aware, the
United States and the entire military coalition.

* * *

International Aid

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, we just heard that Canada has given $16
million for refugee aid to Afghanistan. However, in reality the UNHCR has
received $1.19 million, less than what Angelina Jolie has personally donated,
by the way.

Canada has now dropped from 10th to 17th place in
overseas aid, a pretty dismal record. The Canadian Council for International
Cooperation said that Canada needs to increase its aid by at least $400 million
for four years.

Will the Minister of Finance make that commitment for
an increase as part of Canada's international obligation to people desperately
in need?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to state that Canada in
2000-01 spent over $3 billion Canadian in official development assistance. This
is a significant increase from the 1990s or even 1989-90 where we only spent
$2.8 billion.

I also want to state that the government increased the
budget for official international assistance by $434 million in the last budget
over three years. Just this year in our throne speech we committed to increase
our international assistance.

* * *

Access to Information

Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, since 1999 the Prime Minister has run up a
hefty legal tab of over $150,000 fighting a request from his own information
commissioner to review his agenda books. This dispute has its origins in the
Prime Minister's well documented interference at the APEC summit.

Since forming a government, the Prime Minister no
longer likes accountability or transparency. Neither the information
commissioner nor the privacy commissioner can order material be released. Why
is the Prime Minister using taxpayers' money to hide behind the powers of his
office and subvert the law of access?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is not the Prime Minister's private
lawsuit. This involves serious questions of interpretation of the Access to
Information Act and the Privacy Act. The decisions in these matters would not
only affect this government but future governments. We owe it to the public at
large to have these matters looked at by the courts.

Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, it certainly is not a private lawsuit. The
taxpayers are footing the bill.

Time and time again the government has turned its back
on concepts of openness and accountability. In Bill C-36 the justice minister's
sweeping new powers will indefinitely, if not permanently, hide information
from Canadians while sidestepping government watchdogs. Powers of arrest and
intercept are expanded, rights are suspended and safeguards against excessive
use are minimal.

Given the sense of alarm, will the minister accept
sunset clause amendments for intrusive sections of the bill to protect Canadian
rights from a cabinet information clampdown?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have made plain on numerous occasions
here in the House, I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. member and
others in terms of certain provisions of the bill. We on the government side
believe that everything in this legislation comports with the charter of rights
and freedoms and Canadian values.

However, as I have indicated, I look forward to the
advice and recommendations from both the House and Senate
committees.

* * *

(1445)

National Security

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, whether it is through lack of skill or
lack of will, the foot-dragging government is losing the battle to maintain an
open border with our greatest trading partner. The United States is moving
quickly to place the security of Americans ahead of trade with this
country.

The vice-president of the Canadian Trucking Alliance
said yesterday that the government has been too slow to engage the United
States in border talks. Will the government immediately initiate bilateral
talks on this crucial issue?

I have personally been involved in the last two weeks
in talks in Washington on these matters. My talks have been followed up by very
vigorous talks by the foreign minister.This is something very important to
us.

At the recent APEC summit it was stated that Canada,
the United States and Mexico would be undertaking talks specifically on these
matters not only involving the Canada-U.S. border but the U.S.-Mexican border
as well.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is the wrong people doing the
talking.

The Canadian people who have the enthusiasm and the
motivation to resolve the border issue are not currently engaged in the
process. Three-quarters of Canadian CEOs say that Canada and the United States
must agree on common security measures. They understand that unless Canada
convinces the United States that our own borders are secure, the United States
perimeter becomes its border with us.

The government's approach is failing Canadians. Will
the Prime Minister immediately immobilize a team Canada open borders delegation
of business leaders and provincial representatives to go to Washington and
address this issue?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has
been for the last couple of months but our Prime Minister has already been to
Washington and raised this matter with President Bush. They both agreed
publicly that addressing the issues of the border is a common and joint
priority.

I want to point out as well that to deal with these
matters requires a lot more than a one shot mission to Washington by business
people, members of parliament or ministers. It involves continued ongoing
efforts by all the stakeholders and will require very extensive legislative
changes, whatever we agree on. That is the reality.

* * *

[Translation]

Finance

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, at their meeting this past weekend, all of
the provincial ministers of finance were in agreement that they should call
upon the federal government for more funding for health and education to enable
them to fulfill their responsibilities properly.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that a fair
assessment of the surplus would enable him not only to meet his objectives of a
balanced budget and to foot the bill for security and defence, but also to meet
the demands of the provinces as far as health and education are
concerned?

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we had an excellent discussion at
yesterday's meeting. We agreed to get together as early in the new year as
possible.

As you are aware, we base our projections on estimates
from private sector economists. These projections will certainly be tabled in
the House at the time of the December budget.

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, not only does everyone agree that health
and education are total priorities, but there is even more agreement on the
significant multiplier effect additional investment would have in this
area.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that, if he were to
comply with the request of the provincial ministers of finance, he would manage
to kill two birds with one stone, that is sustaining the economy, while at the
same time meeting the needs of citizens?

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that health and
education are priorities for Canadians, and they certainly are as well for the
Canadian government.

That is why, since we balanced the budget and put
public finances on a healthy footing, in excess of 70% of all our new
expenditures have been in the areas of health and knowledge.

At the same time, one year ago, the Prime Minister
agreed with the provinces on the largest transfer for health funding in
Canadian history.

* * *

[English]

Anti-terrorism
Legislation

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in the anti-terrorism bill the government
has decided that one's political, ideological and religious motivations are
essential elements of the act of terrorism.

Why does the government want to hinder prosecutions and
assist terrorists by requiring the crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the
motives of terrorists?

(1450)

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we do not believe that the definition as
found in Bill C-36 provides any unnecessary or unreasonable impediments to
prosecutors. We see those qualifiers as an important part of the definition to
ensure we are not sweeping up organizations, groups and individuals who should
not be included.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in pursuing the September 11 monsters we
should not be concerned with their political, religious or ideological
justifications. Quite frankly there can be no justification for acts of
terrorism.

Why does the government not amend the bill by removing
these unnecessary protections for terrorists?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we would agree that acts of terrorism can
never be justified. Therefore I would ask the hon. member and his opposition
party to get on side and support the legislation.

* * *

Zimbabwe

The Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa has
just returned from Harare where he attended a meeting of the committee of
commonwealth foreign ministers. Could the minister please let the House know
the results of the outcome of the meeting in Zimbabwe?

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State
(Latin America and Africa), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada insisted in Harare that civil
society and independent stakeholders be heard and they were. Many said that the
rule of law has not been followed in the constitution of Zimbabwe. The violence
and unlawful occupation of farms continue. We were very disturbed by what we
saw there. Canada strongly supports the deployment of election observers for
the elections in March or April, 2002.

* * *

Search and Rescue

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on Friday two men died and two were
rescued in horrific sea conditions off the north coast of Vancouver Island.
Before I continue I would like to express my appreciation for the heroic
efforts of the crew of the coast guard vessel John P. Tully in this
rescue and the crews of the fishing vessels Frosty and Hope Bay
who assisted the rescue efforts.

Does the minister not agree that the rescue of these
men was delayed because search and rescue did not have a suitable helicopter to
deploy?

Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for congratulating
the excellent work of the people in the coast guard in this situation. Every
single day coast guard men and women respond to emergencies such as the hon.
member talked about.

I am certainly not aware of the statement the hon.
member mentioned with regard to the helicopter. I will take it upon myself to
look into the matter. I have not been made aware of it. However, I can assure
everyone that we have more resources than we did before. In fact $115 million
of new resources have been put into the coast guard.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the
Labrador was called at 25 minutes past midnight but refused due to darkness and
severe weather. It was called a second time at six in the morning and did not
leave until eight.

As the minister suggests, there was a helicopter
available but it was not deployed because it was being held in Victoria so that
the minister could have a photo op. A photo op for the minister is more
important than saving lives.

Does the minister not agree that if the government had
acted responsibly and provided proper search and rescue helicopters, these
deaths may well not have happened?

Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we often hear the opposition making all
sorts of allegations. When we look into those allegations we find the facts are
totally incorrect and they put them out without any foundation. I will
endeavour to look into the facts that the hon. member has stated to make
sure.

As I said earlier, we invested $115 million in new
funds to make sure that the coast guard has the resources. Every single day it
saves Canadian lives. It is unfortunate the hon. member twists the facts into
something different from what they really are.

* * *

(1455)

[Translation]

Airline Industry

Mr. Mario Laframboise
(Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport recently
provided a $75 million loan guarantee to Canada 3000 to help it cope with the
crisis in the airline industry following the September 11 attacks.

Will the minister tell us if he also plans to provide
loan guarantees for the small regional air carriers in Quebec to help them get
through this unprecedented crisis?

Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when I made the announcement last
Thursday, I clearly stated that the assistance had to be limited to the five
largest carriers: Air Canada, Air Transat, Sky Service, WestJet and Canada
3000.

* * *

[English]

The Environment

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the
Environment.

Delays at the Canada-U.S. border not only inhibit trade
but affect the environment. A 30 minute delay at the border equates to hundreds
of tonnes of additional greenhouse gases per annum. Why has the environment
minister done nothing to address this concern?

Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the
Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the Deputy Prime Minister,
the government has done a number of things to try to get changes in the
policies at the border, particularly on the American side, so that we can in
fact expedite the movement of goods, people and vehicles across the border.

There is no question that there is additional air
pollution related to the delays. That said, the fact is the problem will
minimize when we get the border cleared. That is our fundamental problem and it
is what we are working on. I took this matter up with my American counterparts
when I visited Washington.

* * *

Infrastructure Program

Today the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has
called on the federal government to make a major investment in infrastructure
across the country in areas such as drinking water, rapid transit, the
environment and housing.

I want to know what the minister's response is to this
request from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Can we expect a major
announcement with regard to infrastructure in the budget, which will stimulate
the economy and create thousand of jobs in the country at a time when jobs are
needed?

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the government in the
forthcoming budget is focusing on national security, but obviously the
necessity of protecting the basic infrastructure of the country is something we
will always look at.

I point out that there is a major infrastructure
program going on both in terms of roads and the environment. The Minister of
the Environment and the Minister of Transport have spoken about this
extensively. The minister in charge of CMHC has spoken about housing. All of
that has arisen out of extensive discussions with the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities.

* * *

Anti-terrorism
Legislation

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in light of the concerns of some Canadians
about civil liberties, some groups have called for exemptions from Bill
C-36.

Could either the minister of Indian affairs or the
justice minister tell us whether native people across Canada will be exempted
from the provisions of Bill C-36 as some of their leaders are calling for? A
simple yes or no would suffice.

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I find the question somewhat strange. Bill
C-36 is very clear. It is directed at terrorist activity.

In fact there is no discussion in and around any
particular group or organization. The legislation focuses on one thing and one
thing only. It is terrorist activity.

* * *

Agriculture

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, farmers in Canada are waiting with great
anticipation for the fall budget expected in December. The Liberal government
has a record of stumbling from ad hoc agriculture program to ad hoc program,
weighted down in bureaucracy with no long term vision.

Will the Minister of Finance finally commit in this
budget to implementing a long term sustainable agriculture policy that farmers
will be able to rely on?

Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the June federal-provincial-territorial
ministers meeting there was unanimous agreement by all ministers present, all
the provinces, all the territories and the federal government to move forward
with an agricultural action plan, a policy framework for agriculture to move in
a direction, as we said in the last throne speech, beyond crisis management.

I can assure the House that with the consultation with
the industry, with the provinces, with colleagues on this side of the House and
with the support of colleagues on the other side of the House we will move in
that direction.

* * *

(1500)

Terrorism

Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, in media reports over the weekend the
United States is musing about using tactical nuclear weapons in the war against
terrorism.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will
Canada in the strongest way tell our allies in the United States that under no
circumstances will Canada accept the use of tactical nuclear weapons in any
case?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not provide any
evidence to show that what he is saying is a fact. I am not aware of any
activity of that sort. There are international conventions about nuclear
weapons which I am sure members of the alliance are sticking with.

By the way, to answer further a question by another
member of the hon. member's party, I am advised that the United States may be
using cluster bombs but only on military targets and the assertion of the NDP
member earlier should be withdrawn.

* * *

[Translation]

Genetically Modified
Organisms

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay
(Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the Minister of Health
came out in favour of mandatory labelling for genetically modified organisms.
Recently however, the government voted down at second reading a bill sponsored
by one of its members which moved in this direction.

Can the Minister of Health tell us if he is still in
favour of mandatory labelling for GMOs, given his government's position on this
issue?

[English]

Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is fully aware of the fact
that four ministers on this side have written the chair of the health committee
to ask her to bring in members from a number of different committees to have a
discussion around the topic of food labelling in Canada. We look forward to the
results and the comments of that committee.

* * *

Privilege

Minister of
Transport

[Privilege]

Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to
charge the Minister of Transport with contempt. The minister has brought the
authority and dignity of the House into question and has breached the new
procedure that was established by the adoption of the first report of the
modernization committee.

On Thursday, October 25, while the House was in
session, the minister held a press conference to announce a $75 million bailout
for Canada 3000. While this brand of disrespect is not uncommon for the Liberal
government, I believe that this is the first time that such an act has occurred
since the adoption of the first report of the modernization committee. At page
4 of that report the committee states:

Concerns have been expressed that
government announcements, regarding legislation or policies, are increasingly
made outside the House of Commons. While this is by no means a recent
phenomenon, it continues to be a source of concern. The Committee is
recommending two initiatives to address it.

First, it is important that more
ministerial statements and announcements be made in the House of Commons. In
particular, topical developments, or foreseeable policy decisions, should be
made first—or, at least, concurrently—in the chamber. Ministers, and their
departments, need to be encouraged to make use of the forum provided by the
House of Commons. Not only will this enhance the pre-eminence of Parliament,
but it will also reiterate the legislative underpinning for governmental
decisions.

The committee recommended that the government make
greater use of ministerial statements in the Chamber and that the House leaders
be advised in advance of these statements.

I was not advised of this announcement. When I stood in
the House on Thursday and asked the Thursday question, the government House
leader had the opportunity right there and then, but failed to do
so.

There was no reason why the Minister of Transport could
not have advised the opposition and there were no procedural difficulties
preventing the Minister of Transport from making his announcement in the House.
I am certain that all parties would have extended every courtesy to the
minister if he had chosen to respect the House and make his announcement
here.

It is important to know that the House adjourned early
on that day for lack of business. It adjourned early last Monday and Friday and
it adjourned early on Friday, October 19, and on Monday, October 22, so wherein
lies the problem with debating these issues on the floor of the House? A $75
million bailout is no small change. Where does the minister think the authority
to spend the $75 million comes from?

The government and its departments are continuously
making a habit of mocking the parliamentary system in this manner. We have had
the deliberate leaking to the media of contents of Bill C-15 and, more
recently, of the anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36.

One of the reasons the modernization committee felt it
necessary to address the issue was that in the last two parliaments the
government got away with mocking the legislative process at every turn,
belittling the role of members of parliament. I will cite a few of the more
serious examples.

On Thursday, October 23, 1997, the government announced
that provincial and federal governments had constituted a nominating committee
to nominate candidates for the new Canada pension plan investment board. The
nominating committee was provided for under subclause 10(2) of Bill C-2. The
House had not yet adopted Bill C-2.

On January 21, 1998, the minister responsible for the
wheat board met in Regina to discuss the rules for the election of directors to
the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors, as proposed in Bill C-4, an act
to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Substantial amendments to Bill C-4
tabled at report stage by opposition members were scheduled for debate in the
House. While the House debated how many directors should be farmer elected
versus being government appointees, the minister was holding meetings as though
the bill was already law.

When the Canadian millennium scholarship fund was being
established, a published article in the Toronto Star announced that Yves
Landry had been named as the head of the Canada Millennium Scholarship
Foundation. Mr. Landry was quoted as saying “I am only one member of the board
and my job is to be a facilitator”. There was no legislation before the House
setting up the foundation, nor had the budget announcement allocating $2.5
billion in revenue to the foundation been adopted.

The Minister for International Trade announced on March
30, 1998, the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group. At that
time, the House had not set up a Canada-China interparliamentary
group.

Finally, the date of the last budget that was delivered
in the House, so long ago we have probably forgotten, was announced by the
Prime Minister outside the House.

Each disrespectful act we allow to stand unchallenged
becomes a precedent that serves afterwards to justify more acts of disrespect.
The modernization committee recognized this and felt it necessary to make a
statement.

(1505)

The adoption of this report outlined what standard the
House expected from ministers in this regard.

On page 119 of Erskine May there is a reference
regarding a select committee that was appointed to inquire into the conduct and
activities of members and to consider whether any such conduct or activities
amounted to a contempt of the House and whether any such activities
were:

--conduct...inconsistent with the standards the House was
entitled to expect from its Members.

The minister cannot claim ignorance because the House
pronounced itself on this issue through the adoption of the modernization
committee report. When the Minister of Transport made his announcement outside
the House on Thursday, October 25 while there was still an opportunity to make
it inside, his conduct was clearly inconsistent with the standards the House
was entitled to expect from him. As a consequence the minister is in contempt
of the House.

The other related parliamentary tradition that the
government likes to forget about is the issue of and respect for the doctrine
of ministerial responsibility.

The Minister of Transport and the rest of his
colleagues, and particularly the Minister of Justice, should review the
definition of ministerial responsibility from page 63 of the 22nd edition of
Erskine May. It states:

—ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to
account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments...it is
of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information
to Parliament—

Where can we find the truthful and accurate information
regarding the decision to hand out $75 million to Canada 3000? Not in
Hansard of Thursday, October 25. Where it was found was in the Globe
and Mail of October 26.

I am beginning to think that being held in contempt in
the House is of little concern to the government. Let us look at the example of
the Minister of Justice who was held in contempt for leaking to the media the
contents of Bill C-15.

When I appeared before the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs to review another charge of contempt involving the
minister, I pointed out that we no longer respect, to the same degree as in the
past, the principle that ministers have a duty to parliament to account and to
be held to account for the policies, decisions and actions of their
departments.

I cited the example from 1976 involving the Hon. André
Ouellet, the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs. Mr. Ouellet made
a comment on the acquittal by Mr. Justice Mackay of the sugar companies accused
of forming cartels and combines. As a result, Mr. Justice Mackay cited him for
contempt of court. He was found guilty of the charge and resigned his cabinet
post over the incident.

A charge of contempt by the House should be considered
just as serious, if not more serious, as a contempt charge in a court.
Unfortunately the Minister of Justice chose not to take responsibility in the
time honoured tradition of ministerial accountability, as did Mr.
Ouellet.

Getting back to this case, I will conclude my remarks
by saying that had I had an opportunity to respond to this announcement by the
Minister of Transport I might have asked the minister why he can justify giving
Canada 3000 $75 million but cannot spend one dime on the softwood lumber
industry that lost millions of dollars over a trade dispute with the United
States. Thousands of people are out of work as a result and thousands more are
expected to lose their jobs.

Also, what about the farmers who suffered through this
summer's drought?

These are some of the questions we might have asked if
the minister had given us an opportunity, but we did not. The minister might
want to talk about timing, about how the House was not sitting. It was not
sitting because the government chose not to have it sitting. It adjourned
early. We have adjourned early too many days over the last little
while.

Certainly I saw the minister on television that night
at 7 p.m. The House adjourned early,and I cannot remember if it was 3 p.m. or 4
p.m., but surely he must have made the decision earlier in the day. He could
have spoken to the government House leader and made sure it was put on the
agenda so that we could have done it in the House and it could have been done
properly.

Mr. Speaker, if you find that we have a case of
privilege, I am prepared to move the proper motion.

(1510)

Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I did have the opportunity on Friday to
discuss the matter with my colleague from the Alliance Party. I am grateful
that he raised it today because I could not state the reply on Friday. I will
describe the actions taken on Thursday and then deal with the substance of his
point.

First, everyone knows that since September 11 issues
dealing with airlines are ones that are breaking fast. The problems are
occurring rather rapidly and therefore require rapid response.

The hon. member talks about not being available to make
a ministerial statement at the appropriate time. I am sure he would have given
unanimous consent to revert to statements by ministers on Thursday afternoon
had he known. He questioned the integrity of my colleague the House leader for
not having informed him during the usual Thursday question that he knew this
was coming.

My colleague the House leader did not know the
statement was being issued because the final decision on the matter was only
taken at 5.30 that day. We felt it was absolutely appropriate to call a press
conference at 7 o'clock. The news media was not happy. I was not happy and the
hon. member was not happy.

At the earliest opportunity there was final cabinet
approval for the compensation package for Canada 3000. We called the press
conference so that shareholders, employees and passengers of Canada 3000 would
all know what the rules were before the opening of the stock market on the next
business day.

I have been in the House off and on for quite a while,
like the hon. member. We were here in the early 1970s when ministers made
routine statements and were questioned by the opposition. That is something I
have always been in favour of. It is certainly something I would never be
opposed to.

I was a member of the procedural committee in 1982-83
that brought forward a lot of the reforms of today including the period of
questions and comments after debate. That was done to involve members in
debate. We do not want to hear only from members with set questions and set
answers. We want to encourage the thrust and parry of debate.

My hon. colleague laments the fact that he never had
the chance to have this debated on Thursday. He says he would have raised a
number of questions. He went on a few minutes ago to tell the House what the
questions were with respect to softwood lumber.

He did not raise the question on Friday morning. He did
not raise the question this afternoon in question period. He instead chose to
make a procedural point for partisan gain. I am very sorry about that. I have
great respect for the House leader of the Alliance Party and cannot believe he
is resorting to these kinds of tactics.

I will use the example of the hon. André Ouellet. We
were both in the House when this happened in 1975 or 1976 regarding the sugar
case. It had nothing whatsoever to do with statements by ministers. The hon.
member should not impugn motives by raising that particularly serious case in
this context.

I am sure the hon. member knows this full well. Far be
it from me to cast aspersions or impugn motives by saying he wants to use the
debate for a spurious question of privilege that is not a question of
privilege. It is a point of debate that he should have raised on Thursday or
Friday in question period or today in question period. He chose not to do so.
He was silent today in question period.

I will quote from Beauchesne's fifth edition, section
264 which states:

The option of a Minister to make a
statement either in the House or outside it may be the subject of comment, but
is not the subject of a question of privilege.

(1515)

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment on this point. I
commend not only the person who raised the question of privilege but also the
minister for coming here and defending himself, which is somewhat unusual.
Normally defending the indefensible is left to the government House
leader.

The point is well taken and I hope it would be with the
Chair. Particularly seeing as we have had the report of the modernization
committee, every opportunity should be taken by the government to follow those
recommendations and use the House to make announcements.

I regret that the Minister of Transport is one of the
first to get caught up on this because I will vouch for the fact that he was a
member of the Lefebvre special committee on standing orders and procedure in
1982-83. I served with him on that House of Commons committee. I believe him
when he says he would like to see this kind of procedure used more often. I
would encourage him to do so and then we could use him as an example of how
other ministers ought to behave.

The Speaker:
The Chair has heard the arguments advanced by all hon.
members on this point. The Chair has had occasion to rule previously on items
of this kind. The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough has raised
these kinds of matters when ministers have made statements outside the House
that he wishes had been made in the House.

[Translation]

I know that many members from both sides of the House
are always making the same suggestion to the Chair, that is to do something
about this situation which they think is terrible.

[English]

I am somewhat constrained because, as the minister has
pointed out, there has been a string of decisions on this matter that it is not
for the Chair to intervene and not a breach of the privileges of the House for
ministers to make statements concerning government policy outside the House.
That position has been maintained for a very long time.

The hon. House leader of the official opposition in his
very capable argument suggested that the report of the committee on
modernization recently adopted by the House had somehow changed that.

While I recognize that there are words in the report
that would be of solace to any member making the argument he was advancing, I
question whether the report has changed the situation such that failure to make
a statement in the House has become a question of breach of privileges of the
House. This after all is a very grave matter and one which has to be treated
with the utmost seriousness.

I recognize there is some frustration that the report
has perhaps not been followed in its spirit and intent. Hon. members in making
their question of privilege today have drawn that to the attention of the
government House leader who, I have no doubt, will probably be reading the
arguments over again for several nights running with great interest given his
concern to see that the modernization report is implemented. I believe he was a
member of the committee that helped come up with the recommendations so I know
his interest in it will be substantial.

I find there is no question of privilege here but I
have one other matter that I want to draw the attention of hon. members while I
am on my feet. I would remind all hon. members that apart from the one hour
notice requirement for questions of privilege there are other rules governing
notice of intention to raise a question of privilege.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the
Marleau and Montpetit book we all read so rigorously, at pages 123 and 124
describes them as follows:

The notice submitted to the Speaker
should contain four elements:

1. It should indicate that the Member
is writing to give notice of his or her intention to raise a question of
privilege.

2. It should state that the matter is
being raised at the earliest opportunity.

3. It should indicate the substance
of the matter that the Member proposes to raise by way of a question of
privilege.

4. It should include the text of the
motion which the Member must be ready to propose to the House should the
Speaker rule that the matter is a prima facie question of
privilege.

The letters I have been receiving lately have been
deficient in respect of these matters. I draw them to the attention of the hon.
members in case some time I fire the letter back and say I will not hear it
today and you will have to send me proper notice. Notice has been accordingly
given. Of course we all want to comply with the rules.

Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I will add briefly to that point. I have
great concerns about the issue, as do members of the House. I have concerns
about the way it has evolved and the practice of ministers making statements
outside this place.

The minister has acknowledged the circumstances around
the issue. He has pointed out the timeliness and importance of getting the
issue forward and bringing it to the House.

The minister would also be aware that there is nothing
stopping a minister of the crown, after having made the announcement due to
pressing concerns about the stock market and the security of the industry, from
coming back to the House of Commons the next day, availing himself of the
opportunity to inform the House, and subjecting himself at that time to a few
questions about such an important issue.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Routine Proceedings]

* * *

(1520)

[English]

Divorce Act

Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-406, an
act to amend the Divorce Act (custody of grandchildren)

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an
opportunity to table a private member's bill that deals with an amendment to
the Divorce Act particularly pertaining to the custody of
grandchildren.

The enactment would amend the Divorce Act to allow a
grandparent to apply for custody of his or her grandchildren without the leave
of the court. This is an important move to allow grandparents greater ability
to nurture, protect and care for children in the stead of the parents. I am
pleased the member for St. John has agreed to second the motion.

(Motions deemed adopted,
bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

Questions Passed as Orders for
Returns

Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the answer to Question No. 18
be made an order for return. This return would be tabled
immediately.

The Speaker:
Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Question No. 18--

Ms. Jocelyne
Girard-Bujold:

For the fiscal years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, can the
government provide a detailed list of all funds paid by departments and Crown
corporations to the 75 ridings in Quebec and the 17 administrative regions in
Quebec, indicating separately the amounts paid out by the federal government in
employment insurance and old age pensions to the 75 ridings in Quebec and the
17 administrative regions in Quebec?

(Return tabled)

* * *

Questions on the Order
Paper

Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.

The Speaker:
Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Government Orders]

* * *

[Translation]

Supply

Allotted day—International Aid
Policy

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, as we are resuming debate on the motion
brought forward by my colleague from
Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, I would like to read it
again to help members get back into the right context.

That this House call upon the
government to review its international aid policy with a view to substantially
increasing the funds available for Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in
the context of the military interventions in Afghanistan, and to increasing the
level of its aid for development to 0.7% of GDP, as recommended by the United
Nations.

I think that, in this motion, the member is referring
to a general international assistance policy and is asking us to reflect on the
current urgent situation, namely the drama taking place right now in
Afghanistan and Pakistan where millions of people are seeking refuge to escape
the Taliban regime or to escape air strikes by the Americans and the British.

Everybody will agree the government has moved to
somewhat improve aid to these people. However, the announcement of a further
$16 million to help close to 5 million people in Afghanistan as winter is fast
approaching—a prospect we all dread—is far from enough. For the time being we
can only hope that very soon the government will face up to its responsibility
and commit further money to deal with the emergency situation in
Afghanistan.

I would like to point out that although the situation
in Afghanistan is the most highly publicized these days, it is far from being
the only emergency situation across the world. For the past three years,
Central America has been experiencing a severe drought and thousands, if not
hundreds of thousands of people, especially children, are at risk. Over the
next few weeks casualties could be in the hundreds of thousands. The Canadian
government should be able to intervene there too. As we know, some areas in
Africa are also experiencing emergency situations.

We focused on Afghanistan because the situation there
is well known to Canadians and Quebecers, but I believe that what we are after
is an overall policy. We must get back to acceptable levels of aid in keeping
with Canada's status within the international community. As the foreign affairs
minister said “when you are a member of the G-8, you cannot excuse yourself
when it is time to pay the bill”.

The same can be said of our military commitment, and
our commitment to humanitarian and international aid. Our wealth allows us to
do a lot more than what we are doing currently and also to intervene for the
long term.

Clearly, we must respond to emergency situations.
However, it must be recognized that it is only through structural changes that
we will be able to change the current rules, a system that breeds poverty,
disparities not only between countries, between areas in the world, but also
within our own societies.

There is an old Chinese proverb that I like to quote,
which states “If you give a man a fish, he will have a single meal. If you
teach him how to fish, he will eat all his life”. Our approach to this
situation should be along those lines. We need to have an international aid
program that allows all developing countries, particularly those that have more
problems dealing with the new economic realities of the world, to set up
measures and programs, especially the needed training programs to pull
themselves out of their predicament, out of poverty. There must be forms of aid
that strengthen communities and provide them with the means to
develop.

When it comes to this, Canada is not fulfilling its
responsibilities, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. When you think
about a goal of 0.7%—a goalset by a former Prime Minister of Canada, Lester B.
Pearson, incidentally—we are nowhere near reaching this goal proposed by the
United Nations.

(1525)

Currently, our international aid is at its lowest level
in 30 years. We are at a mere 0.25% of our GDP, which places us 17th out of the
22 countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or
the OECD. In 1999, we ranked 12th. Only one year later, we fell five places. In
1995, we ranked 6th. Canada's position within the international community when
it comes to international aid has dropped noticeably and
consistently.

Canada does not compare well to countries that are much
smaller than us, but that are similar in economic terms: Denmark gives 1.06% of
its GDP, thereby exceeding the United Nations' requirements; the Netherlands
are at 0.82%; Sweden, 0.81%; Norway, 0.8%; and Luxembourg, 0.7%.

How is it that Canada, which prides itself on being a
generous country and on being a good influence for peace in the world, is not
included in this list of countries? As far as I can tell, it is a case of
saying one thing, but doing another.

These efforts are extremely important. I am making my
comments in the context of globalization and economic integration. From a
political perspective, we should all agree that we must eradicate poverty in
our societies, but also around the world, because poverty, inequalities and
injustices are a fertile ground for terrorism. This is not to say that it is
the only cause. As we know, there is far right terrorism in the United States,
but it is clear that inequalities and injustices are the conditions that
generate despair and actions such as the ones we witnessed on September
11.

If we are to fight terrorism effectively and
intelligently, we do need a targeted military response but, above all, we need
an action plan by the international community for economic and social
development, and to fight poverty. Canada should be a leader in the development
of such a plan, but this is not the case right now.

As I mentioned earlier, globalization and economic
integration generate inequalities. It is true that free trade and the opening
up of markets generate wealth, as we have seen over the past 30 or 40
years.

Since the early seventies, world wealth and income have
tripled. We do support the opening up of markets and the rules that were set,
particularly through GATT, now the WTO, because they have generated wealth. The
world has never been richer than it is now. But the redistribution of this
wealth is more uneven than it was 20 or 30 years ago. It is not due to an
economical or physical factor. It is wrong to say that poverty is caused by
rarity.

I just provided an example. When world wealth triples,
we should not look for rarity to explain the growing inequalities between
countries, between regions and even within our societies. Rather, we should
look for social or political phenomena.

Since the early eighties, since the Reagan era, there
has been a lack of will to set up plans to fight poverty, both in our societies
and at the international level.

We do need free trade to generate wealth, but we also
need measures to redistribute this wealth, so that it can provide levers to all
the countries in the world for their economic and social development, and this
is possible.

I will use Europe as an example. Even though most
European countries are developed countries, they do not all have the same level
of development, and in particular, they did not have it in the past. We need
only think about Portugal, Spain or Greece 30 years ago, or even Ireland 10 or
15 years ago. These countries were clearly lagging behind the average European
countries.

In the context of political construction, European
construction, Europeans set up regional and structural development funds that
are now producing results.

(1530)

When we visit Portugal, Spain, Greece or Ireland, we
realize that we are really in developed societies, which was not necessarily
the case about 30 years ago. Thus, it is possible, if there is a political
will, to eradicate poverty. Clearly, this will not happen overnight, but
considering what was done in the past, which was giving up, it seems to me that
this is not the right attitude and that we must instead move
forward.

I take this opportunity to disagree with the image of
the proverbial pie often used for domestic poverty problems as well as
international poverty problems. People say “Before we can redistributing the
pie, there has to be one in the first place”. We will make the pie as big as
possible with free trade and we will then redistribute it among all the
partners. If we really want to make the pie as big as possible, we must at the
same time redistribute the wealth. Everybody has to be able to get his or her
share of the pie.

This two-stage image of the pie being created and then
served up is a false one. This is not the economic reality of things. The
economic reality is that we are part of a system where, to produce, one must be
able to sell. Taken on a national or global scale, this means that it is in our
interest, the interest of developed economies, that there be purchasing power
in southern hemisphere countries and that it be as widespread as possible. That
is the logic of co-operation, which should accompany the current logic of
globalization.

As I have already explained, there are no physical
barriers to this. This poverty is not an inevitability of nature. It is truly
the product of social and political phenomena.

In this context, I therefore think it extremely
important that we rectify this state of affairs, that we once again have an aid
program worthy of the name and that it have the necessary funding for these
countries--I mentioned this earlier--because this is a well understood logic of
what is known as globalization, but also for us right now.

I remind the House that 36,000 Canadian jobs depend on
development aid. Of every dollar spent on aid, over 70 cents comes back to
Canada. So, basically, when $1 billion is spent, $70 million comes back to
Canada. In Canada, there are 50 universities and 60 colleges, including the
college in Lanaudière, which benefit from aid program related contracts. Two
thousand Canadian companies benefiting from aid related contracts are gaining
prominence in certain markets and making enviable inroads
internationally.

The motion we are moving therefore responds in a timely
manner to a need which is critical and shared, I think, by all Canadians and
Quebecers. In the medium and long term, it is the only logical approach if we
are to avoid situations such as those we have witnessed in the last decade or
so, from the slaughter in Rwanda to the events of September 11, or what went on
in the former Soviet Bloc countries.

In conclusion, this international aid program should be
part of a comprehensive set of measures to rectify the situation. Earlier, the
member for Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay reminded the House of what the Tobin tax
could do to civilize speculative transactions and create international
development funds, and to bring about respect for fundamental
rights.

We have initiated this debate in the House and we will
keep it alive in the context of the Costa Rica free trade agreement. The
Canadian government made no move to take the social, democratic and
environmental dimensions into consideration in the bilateral trade agreements
it signed.

I say again that Canadians and Quebecers would never
have accepted to sign a free trade agreement with Pinochet's Chile. We now have
a trade agreement with Chile; we should also have included clauses concerning
fundamental rights such as human, labour and environmental rights.

I also believe that measures could be taken immediately
to show that Canada is going in another direction. For example trade sanctions
on Iraq could be eliminated for things that have nothing to do with military
equipment or that cannot be used for a military build-up. As we know, over the
last 10 years thousands of children died in Iraq because of those sanctions and
Saddam Hussein is still in power.

More globally, I am calling for the restructuring of
international institutions and the means at their disposition. It is obvious
that the challenge we are facing is similar to the one that existed during the
great depression of the thirties.

(1535)

When Roosevelt launched his new deal, maintaining free
enterprise while creating a series of institutions favouring a more
equalitarian and national redistribution of wealth, recognizing among other
things union rights, that lead to the situation we now know.

With globalization and the integration of economies, we
have to recreate this new deal but this time on an international
basis.

This is the debate, the issues raised by the motion
that our colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay tabled in the House. If hon.
members agree with me on the importance of the challenges we face, they should
at least adopt this motion unanimously.

(1540)

Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for
Joliette on his speech. I found it very well presented, particularly his
comparison between the programs developed to cope with the depression in the
thirties and the situation we are experiencing today. I believe this is an
interesting comparison.

Last week I took part in a discussion with some one
hundred students at the Cégep de la Pocatière. With me were church
representatives, a sociologist and a teacher, an Arab originally from Morocco.
The students were particularly interested in two things.

They asked many questions about the effectiveness of
the strikes but also had many queries about short and long term international
aid. They asked whether we were indeed playing our part correctly. I think the
Bloc Quebecois motion of today responds to this in part.

I would like to ask my colleague from Joliette whether
what we have been seeing in terms of international aid since 1993-94 is not the
application of the very same principle the Liberal government has applied
within Canada?

There were many cuts to be made and they were made in
the sectors where people are perhaps the least organized, the least capable of
defending themselves, the least anxious to assert themselves, for instance the
unemployed, who do not necessarily have big organizations to defend
them.

As far as international aid is concerned, hon. members
will recall that funding was cut to COSI, a Quebec agency consolidating all
NGOs involved in international co-operation. Its funding was cut so much that
it was less able to assume its mandate of organization and thus the public felt
less inclined to invest.

Is it not in fact this principle that has led us to the
conclusion that Canada is absolutely not pulling its weight as far as
international aid is concerned? Unfortunately, other countries are doing the
same, which is what has led to the terrorism we have unfortunately experienced,
particularly on September 11.

Mr. Pierre Paquette:
I thank the member for his question, which I find
extremely relevant. What he is referring to is in fact a real danger.

I do think that the Liberal government, and, I must
say, the previous Progressive Conservative government, have both attacked
social programs, which meet the needs of the most disadvantaged, the less
organized people in our society.

It is rather surprising to see that, when governments
want to restore fiscal health, an objective we agree with, it is always easier
to cut employment insurance than it is to cut other programs. However, when the
money is there, the Minister of Finance suddenly announces that he now has some
fiscal flexibility and that he will put all the funds into the military and
security when, in theory at least because that is what they told us, we never
had the means to help the unemployed.

I think the situation is the same on the international
level.

Nowadays, some regions of the world are totally
disorganized and are unable to have an impact at the international level. Just
think of Africa. Even private investors have lost interest in a good portion of
Africa. It is not a question of exploitation. Those regions do not even have
the privilege—I am being ironic here—of being exploited by multinationals
anymore. The multinationals ignore them and the international community ignores
them.

There is something dangerous in the current policies.
Very sincerely, I wonder if we are not actually developing, through bilateral
free trade agreement programs with South American countries, for example, trade
agreements with countries that show some potential for us and letting other
countries down.

It is in that sense that I feel the negotiation of a
free trade area of the Americas, well understood, multilateral and with a
concern for rights, is a much more interesting way to go than bilateral
agreements.

What we could find at the end of the day is that Canada
has bilateral agreements with a number of economically promising countries,
like Costa Rica, but has let down other countries that seemed to be too hard
hit to be worth salvaging.

Does Bolivia, for example, show some potential for
Canada? I think that on a short term, the answer is no. Under a multilateraI
agreement, Bolivia would be included.

What concerns me now is that parts of the world are
left out and are no longer of economic interest for the great powers,
particularly the United States.

In that context, I feel we should give a very clear
indication that, as Canadians and as Quebecers, we are concerned about the
whole world and that we will commit resources at the level expected of us. The
0.7% of Canadian GDP is what we are being asked to contribute in international
aid, and we will be able to reach that level within a few years.

(1545)

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the motion de Bloc Quebecois
has presented today. During this last month, we have had numerous debates on
security, the economy and immigration.

However, we did not discuss international aid much. So,
it is very important that we have this debate today.

[English]

I have always believed we must be a nation that
measures our strength by the mouths we feed and the environment we protect. I
have always believed that has been the value system of our country. It has been
the value system of Prime Minister Pearson, Prime Minister Trudeau, Prime
Minister Turner, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and the present Prime
Minister.

I am also excited today because the Parliamentary
Secretary for the Minister for International Cooperation, who is here in the
House, has stated that the government will be supporting the motion. This is
more than a signal. It is a commitment to act immediately and deal not only
with reviewing our international aid policy programs but to immediately inject
some serious resources into the department if we are going to continue being a
nation that measures our strength by the mouths we feed and the environment we
protect.

On September 18, I believe it was, at the Canadian Club
in Toronto, the United States ambassador to Canada gave his first public
address after September 11. He opened his remarks by saying that on September
11 and 12 the United States had to reach out to leaders of many countries
around the world in order to put together a coalition to deal with the
terrorist actions that took place in the United States. He said that the United
States did not have to reach out to Canada because the Prime Minister called
him directly within minutes of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center.
He said that the Prime Minister told him “We will be with you. Whatever you
need we're there”.

I was sort of amazed because I never saw that statement
of the ambassador of the United States reported in any of the print media.
Obviously I saw that speech on television. I was amazed because I had seen so
much media coverage saying that the government did not really get into the play
right away, that it really did not step up to the plate and support our
neighbours to the south yet here was the United States ambassador saying that
the U.S. did not call Canada, that the Prime Minister called him within
minutes.

From there the government went on to deal with many
different issues, such as national defence, immigration, RCMP, CSIS, et cetera.
While that was going on, an article appeared in the Globe and Mail about
three weeks ago by Margaret Wente. She said that the security files, the border
issues and the immigration problems were being dealt with but that we had
better start dealing with the human deficit. She said that we had better start
dealing in parallel with what must be done to deal with the human suffering
going on in Afghanistan.

Today we have a motion from the Bloc that deals
specifically with that and I celebrate it.

(1550)

It is difficult for us who live with a very special
standard of living in Canada and an almost cocoon-like existence in Ottawa to
feel or imagine the pain of what is going on right now in Pakistan and
Afghanistan. I have to believe that anyone who watched television last night
and saw the children who were bombed inadvertently and the children out in the
Afghanistan desert waiting for yellow bags to drop out of the clouds so they
would have something to eat, would have to ask what we are doing as a
nation.

I realize that within hours $500 million, which was
development money to Pakistan, was forgiven. I realize that we have given
approximately $160 million additional dollars to Afghanistan through various
agencies, such as the United Nations, the Red Cross and other agencies working
there, but I know every member in the House believes we must do more and we
must do it immediately.

We are a nation that has been blessed with incredible
amounts of resources in terms of food supplies. If there were ever a time for
the great asset of agriculture and the food supply we have in Canada to be put
into action and provide international aid, it was at this moment.

I appeal to my colleagues and officials that in the
next few days we think outside the box. Let us figure out a way to take
advantage of that strength. Let us work on making sure that Canada's history of
being there and of reaching out to people in need continues. Let us use food
and water as our instruments of peace, especially for the young
people.

There is something else we can do. Last week a number
of us had an opportunity to be present at a meeting that took place on the
Senate side of this parliament. It was a meeting hosted by one of our senators
for an organization called Olympic Aid. This organization was set up back in
1994 when Olympic Aid lent support to the war victims in the former olympic
city of Sarajevo. Olympic Aid has gone on subsequently and worked in many
different wartorn countries.

The guest speaker was the chairman of Olympic Aid,
Johann Koss, a former gold medal olympic athlete himself, who donated his prize
money from his olympic experience and challenged Norway and other countries.
They have raised millions of dollars. For those who were not present at the
meeting, coaches from all over the world go into wartorn countries, work with
young kids and teach them how to play because they believe that every child has
the right to play. While these young children are being distracted by war and
every other difficulty, Olympic Aid coaches take a holistic approach through
sport.

(1555)

The coaches teach them lifestyle. They talk to the
children about peace and working with each other. I would ask the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation to please appeal to the
minister that we as a nation get behind Olympic Aid. There is no one in the
House who would not support a child's right to play.

Where better to have Canada's presence, through sport
and through coaches teaching and bringing hope to young people, than in a
wartorn country like Afghanistan? So often we do not think of that type of
action being really important but the record will show that from Sarajevo on,
wherever Olympic Aid went and worked with young children in wartorn zones the
reactions and the hopes of those young people has created a lasting impact.

I believe that as a country we can make a very special
contribution in that area, on top of our food and water and on top of all the
other infrastructure and support systems that CIDA brings to Afghanistan and
Pakistan.

As we support the Bloc Quebecois motion today, I appeal
to my colleagues in the executive of the government to ensure we have a very
special presence in the lives of those young people who have a right to play
and a right to a holistic development of their own beings. Let us make sure we
support Olympic Aid.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I participated in this meeting with
Olympic Aid. I do not think the problem is finding out which agency or NGO
could manage this money.

The problem is we have a lack of involvement, not a
lack of rhetoric. All members of parliament and all those who go abroad
proclaim their commitment to helping the poor and the developing countries. We
should go beyond words and take action.

Olympic Aid is a group that has been in existence for a
number of years. It is not a new thing. How much, exactly, did Canada
contribute to this organization?

[English]

Mr. Dennis Mills:
Mr. Speaker, I believe Canada put close to $500,000
into Olympic Aid two years ago. I am not standing here today saying that
$500,000 is enough. I am standing here today saying that it may have to be 10
times that. It may have to be $5 million.

I am not sure where the member is coming from, but in
my remarks I said that we had to move immediately, not just on the fronts of
food, water and infrastructure but that we should make sure the Canadian
International Development Agency or the Agency for International Cooperation
has the resources so that Olympic Aid and all those young Canadian men and
women coaches who want to give freely of their lives and go into war zones, can
work with young kids who have a right to play. I am saying that we as a
parliament and as a government should support that action and not just talk
about it but do it, and yesterday.

(1600)

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay
(Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my
colleague's speech, and I would like to ask him the following
question.

During the weekend, I read that, according to the UN's
estimates, close to 7.5 million people will need humanitarian aid in
Afghanistan. The United States decided to give $320 million, Europe, a little
more than 300 million euros, and Canada announced that it would contribute $16
million, when we have billions of dollars in surpluses.

When I think about the employment insurance fund, which
the government appropriated and which amounts to more than $30 billion, I would
like to ask my colleague how he can imagine all that. This is all very well, he
made a very positive speech, and I thank him for it, but is he ready to make a
commitment in the House that will force the government, in this budget or the
next, to invest 0.7% of GDP, which is the level needed? That is the meaning of
the proposal. Is he ready to spend that money in a reasonable period of time so
that we can know how much time it will take for us to reach the minimum that is
supposed to go to international aid?

[English]

Mr. Dennis Mills:
Mr. Speaker, I do not know today what the exact number
is, but I have absolute confidence in the Prime Minister who is following in
the line of Pearson, Trudeau and all those other great prime ministers who
acted on international challenges like this. The Prime Minister said on
September 11 that we would do what we had to do.

I am absolutely confident that when the budget comes in
December, which is too long for me as I feel we should move on this file
immediately, there will be resources there for international
co-operation.

Canada cannot become a nation that measures its
strength by the mouths it feeds, or the environment it protects or the children
with whom it wants to work unless it spends some serious money. That has to
happen and I believe it will.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear such comments but, as I
said earlier, we need more than words on the part of the government, we need
action.

Allow me to read the text of the motion once again so
members can understand that humanitarian aid is not frivolous but is necessary
and vital:

That this House calls upon the
Parliament to review its international aid policy with a view to substantially
increasing the funds available to Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in
the context of the military interventions in Afghanistan, and to increasing the
level of its aid for development to 0.7 % of GDP, as recommenced by the United
Nations.

I also wish to quote paragraph 1 of the Vienna
declaration and program of action on the occasion of the World Conference on
Human Rights of 1993:

Human rights and fundamental freedoms
are the birthright of all human beings; their promotion and protection are the
first responsibility of Governments.

It has been several years since the protection and
promotion of fundamental needs of human beings were reaffirmed as the
responsibility of governments but unfortunately the government has done very
little in this regard. This is unacceptable.

The idea of allocating 0.7% of GDP to international aid
was first raised in 1969. However, this principle was adopted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations only in 1990. At that time, Canada voted in
favour of this principle. Since then, our country's contribution, far from
reaching this objective, has been reduced, from 0.48% in 1990 to 0.25% today.
This is totally unacceptable. It is therefore easy to conclude that there is a
wide gap between the government's intentions and its actions.

This is all the more shocking when we remember that the
Prime Minister himself said in this House, on April 30, 2001, that our aid to
developing countries would continue to rise. What actually did happen? The
opposite, as we have just seen.

The Prime Minister also said that Canada as a country
is among the best positioned to make rich countries aware of the needs of
poorer countries. When will Canada itself become more aware?

There is a real concern in the country about the
situation of refugees. The situation of the Afghan refugees is really tragic
and something has to be done immediately. Military support is not enough in the
current context. We have to ensure that innocent people are not paying for what
their government has been doing, particularly because of the events that unite
us in this fight against terrorism. This is in essence what Kofi Annan said in
his September 27 press conference at the UN headquarters.

The United Nations takes the issue very seriously and
we should do the same. We have a responsibility to help the UN, as we promised
to do more than 10 years ago. We have to keep our engagement to offer
humanitarian aid of 0.7% of GDP. What more evidence do we need?

The United Nations should lead the diplomatic,
political and, above all, humanitarian actions since it is in a better position
to evaluate the consequences of this crisis and not only the military actions.

And what is this crisis all about? There is a
continuous influx of Afghan refugees in the neighbouring countries, in the wake
of the military strikes. Over 2,000 Afghan refugees gathered at the Iranian
border in the last couple of days, for a total of 4,000 refugees in this camp
alone. The United Nations high commission for refugees is concerned for their
security.

(1605)

The high commission also fears that the Taliban will
recruit within refugee camps. There are also grounds to believe that over
300,000 refugees are massing at the Pakistan border to escape the bombings,
adding to the numbers already there.

It is worthy of note that, even before the military
strikes, the Afghans were the largest refugee group in the world, surpassing by
far those from Iraq, Burundi or Sierra Leone. The Afghan people are therefore
in urgent need of our assistance, because the situation is only getting
worse.

What are we to do? This is what the Bloc Quebecois is
proposing. In the absence of any clear federal policy on bilateral development
assistance provided directly to foreign governments, it would be appropriate to
put in place a specific plan aimed at attaining the objective of 0.7% of GDP,
the target set by the UN.

Second, such a bilateral policy would ensure that funds
are not misappropriated by regimes in which corruption is systematic.

Third, in the short term, we propose the injection of
an additional $3 billion into international humanitarian aid.

Fourth, it is urgent to provide a positive response to
the request for monetary aid from United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan,
for $US 585 million to deal with the Afghan crisis. It is unacceptable that
Canada has so far contributed only $16 million for all humanitarian
organizations. Let us keep in mind that this is the $16 million that had
already been announced, not an additional $16 million. It is still the same
amount. This is totally unacceptable.

Fifth, in the long term, the Bloc Quebecois believes
that the root causes of the scourge of terrorism must be eliminated: poverty,
despair and war. These are the real issues behind any conflict that leaves
countless innocent victims in its wake.

Sixth, we must review our military objectives because
destroying the organization of Osama bin Laden will merely eliminate the threat
it represents. It will not eliminate terrorism, which will exist for as long as
abject poverty continues to exist.

Seventh, the Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that the
federal government must review its foreign policy, which emphasizes the
commercial aspect of international relations. One must realize that human
rights also need to be taken into consideration.

The Bloc Quebecois demands that the federal government
attain the 0.7% of GDP objective, as recommended by the Association québécoise
des organismes de coopération internationale, the Canadian Council for
International Cooperation and the North-South Institute. These are all
organizations which can see the results of this crisis and bear witness to it.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech,
governments are mainly responsible for protecting the rights and freedoms of
any human being. Canada, which boasts about being a rich and privileged country
always willing to help poorer countries, has a duty and an obligation to take
concrete financial measures in this regard.

The Bloc Quebecois proposes concrete and feasible
solutions. Now it is up to the federal government to take action to honour the
commitment it made 10 years ago to Quebecers, to Canadians and above all to
Afghan refugees.

Not long ago, during the debate on Bill C-36, I said
that I hoped the funds allocated for the fight against terrorism would not be
used only for sanctions but also to fight poverty, which would help solve the
terrorism problem.

Today we have an opportunity to pursue this discussion
and to see to it that our words are supported by concrete actions. Bombs are
not enough to curb terrorism. We also need to provide support to the innocent
population and to take concrete steps within the country.

The Bloc Quebecois proposes short and long term
solutions. Let us not kid ourselves, terrorism will continue to have a hold on
disadvantaged nations as long as the root causes of this scourge exist and
these nations remain without a voice to express their feeling of helplessness.

It is incumbent upon us to give them the tools they
need to advance toward democracy, and that is what the Bloc Quebecois is
proposing.

(1610)

Mr. Serge Marcil
(Beauharnois--Salaberry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a comment.

Of course everybody is in favour of mother and apple
pie. Today we are talking about Afghanistan but there are more than 40 million
refugees on the planet, of which 2 or 3 million were Afghans. Those 40 million
refugees represent more than the population of Canada.

As other countries do, the Canadian government sets
aside part of its budget for humanitarian aid and assistance to developing
countries. I wonder if we are not trying to outdo the others when we say That
country gives that much, so Canada should give this much and that other country
gives that much more, so Canada should give this much more.

Should we not seek a global solution? Should it not be
everyone's responsibility to participate in humanitarian aid and not only a
Canadian responsibility? The Americans are giving but are they doing so because
of the war to improve their image? Maybe we should discuss that.

I wonder if our way of helping developing countries is
appropriate. Maybe we should be contemplating another type of formula.

According to the figures, there are more than 500
million wealthy individuals on earth but 5 billion people are living below the
poverty line. Wealth is being created but not shared. Instead of always asking
countries to contribute according to their GDP, what other solution could we
come up with?

Asking countries to do their share is still appropriate
but maybe we should consider another way of going about it.

(1615)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt:
Mr. Speaker, I think there are very important NGOs that
can take the money and distribute it properly.

The hon. member says that we are asking Canada to
provide large sums of money and that other options must be available, but let
us not forget that Canada made a commitment. It signed a document stating that
it would comply with the objective of 0.7% of the GDP. Canada made a commitment
to do so.

Now, out of the 22 donating countries, Canada ranks
17th. In 1995, it ranked fifth. This means that this Liberal government has
reduced funding essential to developing countries.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the Chair and the hon.
member for Châteauguay that I had the honour and the pleasure of welcoming 450
students who took part in the Cultivons la paix march in Trois-Rivières, on
Wednesday as part of the international debate.

I hope to have time to read one of the 160 letters sent
to me as the member for Trois-Rivières, and to the hon. member for
Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister of Canada. Let me read an excerpt from that
letter:

I know that the United States have
suffered a tragedy on September 11 with the terrorist attacks that killed
thousands of people. For this reason, you have decided to help the United
States in the war that they are waging against a poor country. Think of all the
innocent men, women and children who will die just because their religion or
country is the same as that of the terrorists. There are already too many
victims; do not add to the numbers.

There are other ways to come to an
agreement than waging a war. Our country should help the good people in that
country and all the others, so that they do not become desperate to the point
of engaging in terrorism.

I am asking you to make peace and to
help poor countries. War only breeds war.

I wonder if the hon. member could share his feelings
about such a sensitive testimony by a young high school student from my
riding.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt:
Mr. Speaker, that fits in with what I said when I spoke
on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act.

I said then that the money the government was promising
today goes only for military sanctions. No money is provided to fight
destitution and poverty, the root causes of this war. As long as there is
destitution and poverty, the freedom that we are advocating will never be, and
the war which is raging now will never cease.

(1620)

Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to add my voice to those of my
colleagues calling upon the government to review its international aid policy
with a view to substantially increasing the funds available for Canadian
humanitarian aid, particularly in the context of the military interventions in
Afghanistan, and to increasing the level of its aid for development to 0.7% of
GDP, as recommended by the United Nations.

There are at least two reasons for increasing the
assistance to developing countries.

The first one is essentially ethical in nature. Canada
is a rich country enjoying a certain measure of comfort and economic security
which make developing countries envious. We in the western world are considered
as privileged, rich people. The tragic events of September 11 have severely
affected our economy and are forcing us to review our forecasts. But that is
nothing compared to the situation that poor countries are faced
with.

Does that mean that Canada must review the part of its
budget concerning international assistance in order to increase it? Most
agencies working in this area agree with us that Canada must do so.

We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that Canada has not
lived up to its humanitarian responsibilities. It appears this government is
not responding adequately to expressed needs.

Proportionally Canada ranks 18 out of 22 donor
countries for international aid. We are among the least generous countries in
the world. That was enough for the head of Rights and Democracy, Mr. Allmand,
to urge the Canadian government to increase its foreign aid budget.

Let us take a closer look. Recently the United Nations
asked for $900 million Canadian to help some 7 million Afghans whose survival
depends on international aid. So far just over 11% has been collected. Since
September 11, Canada's share has reached $16 million. We must do
more.

Over the last decade, Canada has contributed $150
million in aid to Afghan refugees and Afghanistan. In view of the prosperity
Canada has known over the past eight years, this is not enough, not to mention
unacceptable.

In the meantime, other countries are showing us the
way. In 1995, Canada ranked sixth in terms of international aid. However, last
year the British government increased its aid by 35%. This increase was 22% in
Belgium and Sweden, and 10% in the Netherlands.

According to media reports, even if our 2001-02
humanitarian aid budget were increased by $45 million over last year to $2.6
billion, we would still be investing 20% less than 10 years ago when the
Liberals came to power. This is unacceptable.

Our participation has greatly deteriorated. We are
lagging far behind, especially in view of the many years of prosperity we have
experienced. The government might want to argue that since 1990 its efforts
have been hampered by the need to make substantial budget cuts. However the
Prime Minister himself acknowledged that Canada should do better in the future,
but nothing concrete has been announced yet in this regard.

Of course the Minister for International Cooperation is
reviewing Canada's processes with a view to providing more effective
international assistance. But that does not change the facts. The government is
miles away from the target set by the UN, which is a contribution of 0.7% of
the GDP. By increasing the budget by $1.6 billion over the next four years, we
will increase our contribution to 0.35% only, or half our commitment as a
signatory to the UN convention.

(1625)

Concerning the events of September 11, Canada wishes to
maintain its influence in the international arena. The Minister of External
Affairs himself came to this conclusion. So, what is the government waiting
for?

This minister admitted that Canada has a good
reputation but that it cannot live up to its reputation. We all know that.
Within the context of any realistic foreign policy, it is crucial to look at
the gap that is growing between rich and poor in the world.

Let us not forget the facts: in 1993, the Liberals
promised to contribute no less that 0.7% of Canada's GDP to international
assistance. Seven years later, this same Liberal government is devoting only
one-quarter of one per cent of the GDP to international assistance.

The need to increase this assistance is very real and
urgent. In a few weeks, Ottawa will host an important meeting of the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund. The events of September 11 and their
impact, particularly on the poor, will be at the heart of the discussions. The
reduction of the debt of disadvantaged countries will surely be a focus of
attention.

It is high time that the government re-evaluated the
situation. It has enough flexibility to increase its aid program. We have the
necessary resources, since the surplus forecast for the end of the year is over
$10 billion.

But most of all, we have to increase international aid
because many people are condemning the growing gap between the rich and the
poor. We have to send a clear message. When we talk about fighting poverty, we
can walk the talk.

It is important to act right now. Afghan women and
children have been suffering the horrors of war for much too long and the
bombing their country has faced since the beginning of the allied retaliation
is putting them into a very difficult situation.

Allow me to come back for a moment to the reform of the
Canadian International Development Agency. The planned reform is well accepted
by the non- governmental organizations specializing in international
co-operation but there are still some reservations.

The Canadian Council for International Cooperation,
which represents more than a 100 non-governmental organizations, does not
support the action recommended by CIDA, which would rather fully subscribe to
the World Bank global approach. In fact, the council is concerned that this
could lead to a reduction in the level of aid given to the most disadvantaged
populations, thus diminishing the importance of Canada as a donor.

Canadian international co-operation organizations have
expressed some reservations and are concerned about some major issues in the
proposed reform:

CIDA would redefine its mission to
include Canada's strategic interests...by extrapolating trade
interests.

History tends to show that trade interests and human
rights do not go together well.

Furthermore, the marginalization of
civil society organizations, which have largely contributed to democratic
development and the solidarity—

These organizations would simply implement policies set
by governments.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund see
the integration of poor countries into the market system as the remedy for the
planet's ills. By contrast, many stakeholders in international solidarity do
not share this vision. The Women's Network, among others, claims that the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund are responsible for the continuing
poverty and its increase in the world.

In closing, the effect of increasing poverty is that
the production of wealth is up against its opposite, the factors of
destruction. Among these factors is terrorism driven by revolutionary ambitions
of changing the system. What can we do? Fight at all costs the profitability of
terrorism, which would have the effect of relegating world security and peace
to a position of secondary importance.

(1630)

We must thoroughly re-examine the contemporary world
order and, thus, seek world justice. We must prevent the use of terrorism as a
weapon for political purposes and, of course, eliminate poverty in the
world.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from the Bloc
Quebecois, and I would like her comments on this.

Should Canada not re-evaluate its way of doing things
in matters of foreign policy?

Clearly, the world has changed. Canada is not the only
country that must change its foreign policy. The cold war has just ended. From
now on, the only thing that matters is trade. The agreements signed in China
are an example of this. We only take care of the trade aspect, without going
beyond it.

Perhaps we should also talk of the human rights before
making the decision to trade with another country. We could re-evaluate our
approach and consider another foreign policy instead of insisting on signing a
trade agreement and forgetting everything else. If we can make money with a
country, we go ahead and trade with it.

Should we not consider something else? I give human
rights as an example because there could be something other than trade. I would
like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

Mrs. Pauline Picard:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comment and for
his question.

I agree with him completely that it is vital that
foreign policy be reviewed and that there must be a greater focus on human
rights. Everything would seem to be inter dependant.

We see this in CIDA's new reform. With all due respect
for the minister, who is making a great effort, CIDA's policy must not be
strictly trade oriented.

This opening across borders must not be allowed to fall
into the hands of the large multinationals, which is what seems to be happening
right now. We see this in the G-7 countries. In addition, there are
non-government bodies infiltrating the policies of these countries. These are
huge multinationals, which are taking over and having a very destructive effect
on all the people of the world.

Some direction is vital. We must pay more attention to
the gap between the rich and the poor and not neglect developing countries,
which can be used by the large multinationals in trading activities which
ignore human rights.

Mr. André Harvey (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I remember the speech by the member for
Joliette, earlier this afternoon, when he stressed how important it was not
only to send food to the Afghan people but also to teach them to feed
themselves. This is an example that everyone knows.

I think we have to admit that the bottom line is that
the international humanitarian aid effort by a number of countries has not
amounted to much. This does not go back five or ten years, but a hundred years.
For several decades now, Canada has participated in the international
humanitarian aid effort.

In the event of a budget increase, I would like to know
if the issue of poverty in the world would be solved? Could the member confirm
to us that this is strictly a budget issue, or is this a case of inappropriate
action? In the event of a budget increase, should it be done through public
organizations, or should we go through the private sector, which would give
these people more opportunities to participate in the marketing
process?

The member greatly criticized the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank. I would like to know what the main lines of
action will be in the years to come. What should we do to be more—

(1635)

The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
I have to interrupt the hon. member, if we want the
hon. member for Drummond to answer.

Mrs. Pauline Picard:
Mr. Speaker, what I can say, is that it is also a
question of money. I am not saying that it is only a question of money, but it
is also a question of money, of distribution of wealth.

I am somewhat surprised to hear the member say that I
criticized the IMF and the World Bank. I mostly wanted to question their
current role and to warn the G-7 countries that are meeting to discuss world
organizations. That was what I intended.

Yes, wealth needs to be distributed if we want to avoid
situations like the one in Afghanistan right now.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform
the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is
as follows: the hon. member for Lakeland, National Defence.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be
sharing my time with the member for
Ottawa--Orléans.

The best guarantee of a good quality of life is
democracy, as the ravages of current wars demonstrate. What Afghanistan needs,
more than short term humanitarian assistance, is a government that will respect
human rights and treat women as equals, so that children will grow up happy and
healthy.

It is easy for our friends opposite to ask for, and
expect, the moon. They know they will never form a majority. The Bloc is asking
for a substantial increase in the funds allocated for Canada's humanitarian
assistance, particularly in the context of the military intervention in
Afghanistan.

Governing is about planning. I believe Canada has an
excellent track record in the world. Our country provides assistance through
CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency. This organization is very
active and generous with its aid because it is what must be done in terms of
ethics, justice and human solidarity.

CIDA's approach is careful, which is good. CIDA's
mandate is to support developing countries in reducing poverty and contribute
to a safer world, one that is fairer and more prosperous.

As we know, this mandate was the result of broad
consultations in 1995. In 1996, CIDA approved a policy on the reduction of
poverty aimed at encouraging countries to work on their self-determination
rather than dependency.

My question today is this: should we link our foreign
aid to our country's long term interests while acknowledging that extreme
poverty must be eliminated?

For some years now there has been debate on the
question of whether CIDA should concentrate on a limited number of countries.
We are all aware of foreign policy pressures and pressure from the opposition
for us to distribute our resources widely. The discussion is open. What
countries take priority? Today we are told it is Afghanistan.

I think we as a government must ask ourselves this and
seek to find an answer, saying that what must be done is to target our
international aid so that it will be more efficient and effective.

This is not an easy answer to come up with. In the case
of Afghanistan, CIDA has provided $150 million over the past 10 years to help
lessen the suffering of refugees and internally displaced persons . These
people have been hard hit by 20 years of conflict and 3 years of drought, which
have devastated their country.

As a Canadian, I find it extremely painful to see the
extent to which the people of that country are downtrodden and
destitute.

It took the events of September 11 and the destruction
of the twin WTC towers to focus world attention on Afghanistan. Why is that?
Because terrorists can hide out there, with the complicity of the reigning
Taliban regime.

What we have discovered in Afghanistan since the
cameras of the entire world have been focussed on it, is that there is a reign
of terror. Women have no rights. They can be beaten or stoned and their
suffering is immense. A large percentage of the population is illiterate. I
think that must suit the Taliban, as it makes it easier to control the
population.

Canada provides Afghanistan with an average of $12
million yearly. These funds go to support numerous NGOs and UN agencies. The
breakdown is as follows: CARE, $3 million; World Food Program, $1.7 million;
International Committee of the Red Cross, the UN Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs, and so on. We have a whole list.

(1640)

The minister responsible for CIDA recently announced a
further contribution of $10 million to help deal with the immediate needs of
Afghan refugees and displaced populations in the area. This brings to $16
million Canada's contribution for Afghan refugees since September 11,
2001.

I am pleased to learn that Canada spends about $21
million a year in Pakistan and that the objective of the program continues to
be the reduction of poverty. For example, we give $12 million through a
governance program to promote democracy at the local level and to increase
public participation in local affairs. The emphasis is on women's
participation.

Humanitarian aid is much more likely to succeed in poor
countries if women are involved. CIDA deserves praise for having been doing so
for a number of years.

Let us not forget that Canada's wealth is not
unlimited. Let us also not forget our own children. Poverty exists in our
country too. There are children who go to school on an empty stomach. It was
found that serving breakfast in some schools increased attendance by 30%.

Here poverty is more hidden but nevertheless very real.
In Laval, on l'île Jésus, which is located in the riding of Laval East, there
is a volunteer centre with a very long list of families that need
food.

I am thinking of one of my constituents, Louise
Beauchamp, the director of the St-Claude soup kitchen in Laval-des-Rapides. She
knows about the plight of some residents of Laval.

In Saint-François, which is located in my riding, many
seniors would not eat regularly if it were not for the visits of volunteers
from the meal on wheels program.

In conclusion, it is true that our government is
committed to investing more resources to strengthen democracies, justice and
social stability in the world. We also want to reduce poverty and eliminate the
debt of poor countries.

For example, we proposed a moratorium on the repayment
of the debt of 11 of the 17 most indebted poor countries to allow them to
invest in critical areas for their people.

It is not true that we are not taking action. We are.
We are doing our best and we must prepare to help the Afghan people give
themselves a government that will be representative of the population once the
war is over.

I said at the beginning that democracy is the best
option for people. Again, Afghanistan needs a government that will respect
human rights and treat women as equal persons.

(1645)

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a letter sent to me
by a student in secondary I at the École secondaire des Pionniers, in my
riding. The letter was about the conflict that is going on right now. I will
then ask my Liberal colleague what she thinks of it. The letter reads as
follows:

I am writing you this letter to
suggest to you not to go to war but rather to give money to help people instead
of hurting them.

You could give money to provide food,
shelter, education, medical care and clothing to those poor Afghan refugees who
had nothing to do with the events that occurred in the United States.

The other day, I saw a report about
Afghan refugees. They have practically nothing to eat but bread. Winter is
coming and many of them do not even have shelter. They do not have warm
blankets. Two or three children die of hunger or of disease every day.

You could help them by giving them
good food, water, medicine and a roof over their heads.

I hope this letter will make you
think.

I wanted to read this letter to my colleague opposite.
What does she intend to do? Does she think that her government's attitude, in
terms of humanitarian aid, is satisfactory? And, finally, will she support our
motion?

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard:
Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the hon. member on the
other side of the House will be able to inform the person in his riding that
the Canadian government has already gone a long way toward helping the people
of Afghanistan. Indeed, we are setting up all kinds of measures to relieve
these people, whose government supports terrorism.

Therefore, I think it is very important that each and
every member does his share to speak the truth in their ridings.

[English]

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. According to
the UN there are 7.5 million people affected by events in Afghanistan. I should
not say affected by events because it is certainly not just the war; people in
that country were in terrible poverty even before the war began.

If all of a sudden the federal government came up with
the extra $5 billion the Bloc is asking for, which of course is not very likely
and would put us into a deficit position, is it not a fact that we would be
unable to use a lot of that money very effectively in Afghanistan because of
the war that is going on there? At this point we can help somewhat with refugee
camps in Pakistan.

Even the UN has asked for $900 million and other
countries will be contributing. A lot of the money the Bloc is asking for
obviously could not possibly be used in Afghanistan right now. The 0.7% target
that it has suggested is really an arbitrary figure. It is a UN figure but it
is quite arbitrary and in this context all that money could not possibly be
used to help out in Afghanistan.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard:
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member raised the real
question. In fact it is easy for the Bloc to make that request knowing it will
never form the government.

I think it is the Canadian government's responsibility
to take things into consideration and to ensure that money is spent in a
rational wa, to keep our finances in order.

Poverty exists in this country too and it is very
important to ensure the survival of our communities and, of course, to help the
international communities facing wars and conflicts. However I believe we have
to act in consultation with other countries and to avoid giving more than we
can.

(1650)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa--Orléans,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member
for
Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay
for his motion, which I would like to read to the House. The motion asks, and I
quote:

That this House call upon the
government to review its international aid policy with a view to substantially
increasing the funds available for Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in
the context of the military interventions in Afghanistan, and to increasing the
level of its aid for development to 0.7% of GDP, as recommended by the United
Nations.

I had the pleasure of acting as parliamentary secretary
to the Minister for International Cooperation for two years, between 1999 and
2001. I witnessed the fact that the minister is dedicated to helping those in
need and wanted to increase humanitarian assistance. Formerly, CIDA's
assistance was mostly focused on building infrastructure, such as bridges and
dams. More and more now, it is directed toward humanitarian
assistance.

Last year the Minister for International Cooperation
announced that her department and the Canadian International Development Agency
would strive to direct their programs toward the four priority areas of social
development: health and nutrition, basic education, the fight against HIV and
AIDS, and child protection. I would like to congratulate the minister for this
new direction.

I am pleased to support the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay
in our common objectives for international co-operation. Through our Prime
Minister, Canada has committed to fulfilling the development objectives for the
millennium.

These objectives include access to education for all
boys and girls around the world, reducing the number of children who die of
preventable diseases, promoting gender equality and eliminating extreme poverty
and hunger.

Canadians are concerned about what is happening to
children on the planet. What is being done, or rather what is not being done
now to protect these children will have a catastrophic effect on their lives
and a severe effect on our own future.

The Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA,
takes these concerns very seriously. It has developed an action plan for
children, children who require special protection, children who are often
exploited, abused and discriminated against. Its plan is aimed at all boys and
girls growing up in the poorest countries of the world and who are directly
threatened by the most serious dangers.

With this plan of action, CIDA is launching a new and
better approach, which places Canada on the frontline of world action for the
protection of children. The agency does not limit itself to answering the needs
of children who are usually forgotten, it also wants to ensure that the rights
of those children are recognized and respected. Respect for the rights of
children is the key to a real and sustainable change in the life of those
children and communities. This is positive action for development, an good way
to eliminate the root causes of poverty and exclusion.

Children who have to work and who are affected by war
are those who benefit from the initiatives of CIDA for children protection.
Those initiatives are a complement to the agency's efforts for all children in
other areas, namely in health and nutrition, basic education, the fight against
HIV and AIDS. CIDA has committed $122 million for the protection of children
under a five year action plan.

(1655)

Since the world summit for children, which was held in
1990, Canada has taken the lead of the children protection movement.

We have also played a key role in the development of
international agreements on the rights of children, whether it is for children
forced to work, sexually abused children or children forced to become soldiers.
When the government hosted the international conference on children affected by
war last autumn in Winnipeg, we pioneered by inviting children to play an
active part in the debates and decisions.

The government has also obtained the support of the
retired Lieutenant General Roméo Dallaire as a special adviser to the Minister
for International Cooperation on the issue of children affected by war. The
practical experience of the general will be most useful to CIDA, in terms of
its program and will allow us to bring this question to the attention of the
public.

With the House now debating our overall program of
humanitarian and development assistance for countries less privileged than
ours, including Afghanistan and other countries in southern and central Asia,
we must ensure that the emphasis remains on children.

The future of societies torn apart by war lies in the
ability of communities and parents to pass on to their children values such as
peace, tolerance and respect for others, even if these children have often
witnessed horrific acts. The success of these societies will have an impact on
our own safety and stability. These people deserve our support and our
assistance.

Canada should be able to provide greater support for
this sort of initiative. This is why we will be supporting the motion before us
today.

[English]

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc mentioned a
letter received from a constituent. I want to go on record as saying that I got
a number of e-mails from Yukoners who also supported the provision of grain and
other support to the people of Afghanistan and that region. I am sure they will
be happy today hearing the support from the government and many members of
parliament. We could continue providing that aid and increasing it in the
future so that we remove some of the root causes of poverty and help those who
are most destitute.

Would my colleague care to comment on anything he did
not get a chance to say in his speech?

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare:
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member
for Yukon. What the member opposite brought, a letter from a pupil in his
riding, is very apropos since we are speaking about childhood.

We have witnessed some truly heart-rending events,
which began on September 11. And now we have television images of what is going
on in Afghanistan. Canada's children are seeing these images and talking about
them with their friends. Classroom discussions are being held and this is as it
should be.

Unfortunately the events now unfolding in Afghanistan
are shocking. They bring tears to the eyes. We see children in distress,
children dying of hunger.

I appreciate the fact that our children are sending us
letters telling us that they want peace. I find this extremely promising for
the future. One day these children will grow up and they will have intestinal
fortitude. They will want to help their fellow citizens, not just those in
their municipality, in their province and in their country, but around the
world.

(1700)

[English]

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, although I would like to
say more. First, I simply want to say that people on all sides of the House are
shocked by the poverty in Afghanistan. It is truly a crime.

My question has to do with something the member said
early on in his speech when he talked about poverty around the world and the
people affected by it.

Does the member think it is appropriate that Canada
still levies tariffs on least developed countries for things like textiles and
food, remembering that textiles and food are often the only things these
countries can produce?

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare:
Mr. Speaker, the member's question is very pertinent. I
have no doubt that the government is now looking at this.

Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to take
part in this debate. I believe it is appropriate at this time to remind the
House of the content of the motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois and which seems
to be well received by the majority of government members. I believe the mere
fact of reading it might convince people like the member for Laval-Est, who did
not seemed to be swayed by our arguments. The motion reads as
follows:

That this House call upon the
government to review its international aid policy with a view to substantially
increasing the funds available for Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in
the context of the military interventions in Afghanistan, and to increasing the
level of its aid for development to 0.7% of GDP, as recommended by the United
Nations.

Since the beginning of the day we have seen that the
government supports this proposal. I believe it is important for this debate to
take place today. It is equally important to have firm support. This motion is
votable. In this regard, the Bloc Quebecois played its part well in ensuring
that the House would vote on this issue. We tried to get the government to hold
a vote on our military involvement but we failed so far. However on the issue
of international aid there will be a vote. We will be able to see where people
hang their hat.

I believe the Canadian government must make amends in
this matter. According to an OECD report, Canada ranks 17th out of 22 OECD
countries contributing to international aid. We only contribute 0.25% of our
GDP to international aid whereas Denmark's share is over 1%, the Netherlands,
0.82%, Sweden, 0.80%, Norway, 0.80%. A lot of smaller countries invest much
more in this area than Canada.

We know that international aid does not only mean aid
for refugees and emergency assistance. It also means aid for developing
countries so that they too can create wealth and give a future to their youth.
Very often it can be an important tool for preventing situations like the
terrorist attacks we witnessed recently.

We cannot say for sure that if humanitarian aid had
been higher those attacks could have been prevented. However it can be said
that when wealth is distributed more adequately, situations like those
terrorist attacks can be prevented. Humanitarian aid can help educate people,
give them some hope, a chance to have a future. Then they are less receptive to
desperate arguments like those expounded by people working for terrorist
groups.

The position of the Bloc Quebecois in the present
debate is also the position of Canadian non-governmental organizations such as
the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale, the
Canadian Council for International Cooperation and The North-South Institute.
These three associations represent many NGOs and wholeheartedly request that we
re-establish the 0.7% objective as soon as possible, just like the Bloc
Quebecois is requesting.

Since 1993 the Government of Canada's contributions to
international aid have dropped considerably. I think we can draw a parallel
with this and how we treat the poorest and less organized in our
society.

Since 1993 we have also witnessed significant cuts in
employment insurance. We have done the same thing when it comes to
international assistance. These are two spheres where people are less organized
and less able to defend themselves. Some years ago funding for ACOCI, an
organization that raised public awareness about international assistance, was
cut. Because of these budget cuts people may have become less aware of this
reality in the end. Today that decision has come back to haunt us. We must
consider the situation and take real action.

On Wednesday of last week I spoke with a 100 or so
students from the Cegep de La Pocatière. There was also a representative from
the diocese, a sociologist, a professor from an Arab state and a professor of
political science. The questions these young people asked made quite an impact
on us. They were concerned about the real effectiveness of the military strikes
and their effect on civilian populations but also by the whole issue of
international assistance.

(1705)

Right now, when we are asked whether it makes sense to
drop humanitarian assistance over mine fields, we have to say that some
blunders in the system should be avoided. At least we can make up for this with
medium and long term international assistance by substantially increasing our
budget.

The Minister of Finance has said that he will table a
budget by early December. While he tells us that security requirements are very
important, he should at the same time seriously consider a significant increase
in our humanitarian assistance budget.

Our assistance budget stands at 0.25% of the GDP. If we
are to send a clear message, it is very important that we set a goal of 0.7% of
the GDP and that, as early as December, we say that, over the coming year, we
will do something significant and increase substantially our budget so that
this will be felt in our various assistance programs. A new attitude is needed
from the Canadian government. That way, we will really fulfill our role and we
will be in a position to take to task other G-7 countries, which may be the
ones not fulfilling their role in this matter.

Right now there are very important problems. We have
heard what the hon. member for Trois-Rivières had to say. Children are dying.
They will not make it through the winter. Our short term assistance should be
increased but so should our long term assistance too.

We will have all the time to discuss the most efficient
ways to bring our assistance to those in need. What kind of organization should
in be charge? Is CIDA as efficient as it should be? Should we be developing
different forms of assistance? These are questions we should ask but those in
charge should have adequate means to reach the goals our society has set for
itself.

Those actions have not been adopted just out of
charity. The member for Joliette spoke earlier of the distribution of wealth in
our society. I think it is a splendid and very significant picture. After the
Great Depression of the thirties in the United States there was the new deal.
It was found that social programs could be created in order to establish a
safety net and to ensure that those who were the most affected during a
recession or economic slowdown would be protected. These programs were
efficient. In the following decades they allowed us to avoid overly negative
impacts, rough economic situations and slowdowns.

At the international level, we have to ask the same
question. We have to adopt as quickly as possible solutions that will give hope
to people in order for those who are in complete deprivation to make it out. At
the same time we probably should continue to search for a way to eradicate
terrorism through all the means of action possible.

In the meantime, to avoid the development of terrorism,
we have to intervene to eliminate at the source the conditions on which it
relies: ignorance, illiteracy, destitution, under development. If we eliminate
all these conditions and gradually succeed in improving the situation there
will be fewer extreme events such as the one we unfortunately witnessed on
September 11. This situation did not begin on that day, but is rather the
result of an anger which, albeit unacceptable, could be explained globally by
an unfair distribution of wealth. We could play an important role to correct
it.

In closing, we need a global strategy to act on every
aspect of terrorism. One of the ways in which we can play our role as a rich
country, is to commit important additional funds.

This is what the Bloc is calling for today. I hope that
tomorrow, when we vote, this motion will draw a large consensus which will
translate into important new funds in the next budget in early December. That
is when we will see if the government has really understood our
message.

(1710)

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this
debate because last Friday I experienced a particular situation in my
riding.

I had the pleasure of meeting with four students from
the Les Pionniers high school. Two are first year students and the other two
are enrolled in the IEP, the International Education Program. Their names are
Cynthia Lacourcière, Kate Denis, Mathilde Bélanger and Mathieu Hubert, the
latter being the president of his class. They were accompanied by Mr. Gérard
Garceau, with the campus ministry.

They wanted me to know that 450 students had gathered
on Wednesday, October 24, and marched in the streets around the school to
demonstrate under the theme “Let's Cultivate Peace”.

That meeting was not only very moving but also very
instructive for me. All the more so since first year students wrote some 160
letters, half of them addressed to your humble servant, the member for
Trois-Rivières, and the other half addressed to my colleague for Saint-Maurice
and Prime Minister of Canada.

These letters show that not only are those students
very much aware of and sensitive to the situation, but they are also, like the
rest of the people in Quebec and around the world, traumatized and concerned,
particularly by Canada's participation in the war. That is especially obvious
in the letters addressed to the Prime Minister.

The key themes are “no to war”, “no to armament”, “no
to vengeance”, “no to violence”, and “yes to peace and humanitarian aid”, as
can be seen in the letters I will quote in the time I have
available.

While all of course focus on the same themes, they are
all different at the same time.

I will start with this one, a poem in which the student
expresses an opinion.

Over there in Afghanistan, the sky lowers
darkly.
Bombs rain down on the houses.
Scarcely a breath of wind
Stirs the smoke that billows through the smoldering
streets.
The Americans smolder still with hatred
While people are dying,
Even children, innocent children.
They cannot go to bed and dream sweet dreams,
Dreams that the winds of hope may be blowing when
they awake.

Another letter:

Dear
Mr. Rocheleau:

I am writing to share my opinion with
you. I feel we ought not to join in the war; instead we should be sending
people to help the children who are dying of hunger, to care for all those in
need of care, and provide them with drinking water and other necessities to
build peace between us.

My friends and I are not in favour of
this war. Let us say no to violence and war.

Another letter reads as follows:

Dear
Mr. Rocheleau:

This is to express my point of view
on what is taking place in Afghanistan. I do not want Canada to participate in
an offensive, but rather to help people suffering from the consequences of war.
I think we should, amongst other things, send medicine and food to help those
who are suffering.

Thank you for your
patience.

The following letter clearly has a philosophical
tone:

Dear
Mr. Rocheleau:

Human beings often brag about what
they do or what they invent. They describe themselves as the most intelligent
living creatures on our planet Earth. However, seeing all that is going on
right now, I think that they are slightly off, because when I look at the way
animals and plants behave, I find they are more caring for their own kind than
humans.

If we gave more thought to our unique
planet, we would realize that we are turning it upside down.

I think that man was not created to
fight individuals of neighbouring continents but to pursue good
deeds.

This is why, in the wake of the
events of September 11, I ask you, as a human being, to get involved for the
sake of humanity rather than for its suffering, because I tell myself that war
can make more innocent victims than guilty victims.

I thank you for taking the time to
read this letter.

(1715)

Another letter reads:

I am writing to you, Mr. Rocheleau,
to express my disagreement with Canada's participation in the war against
Afghanistan. We can send troops, but they should go not to kill but to take
humanitarian assistance to the Afghanis, who are dying of starvation, or to
protect them from the American bombing.

This does not mean hurting the United
States, but helping them to hit their targets and not civilians. And even if
they destroy Osama bin Laden's training camps, bin Laden will retaliate with
other terrorist attacks and the army will counter-attack and on and on it will
go.

In any case, I hope that you
understand why I do not like the war. I also hope that this will change your
mind on this decision.

Here again, the letter is in poem form:

In Afghanistan far away,
The war gets worse every day.
Some are dying
Others crying.

Send in soldiers
But not to fight.
Send them to help,
Do what is right,
And never regret.

For if you send us
The losses would stagger.
Think of the death
And all who would suffer.

The greatest dream can hardly come true
Is peace in the world for me and for you.
But all of us must do what we can
To bring about this noble plan.

I would remind the House that these are grade eight
pupils.

Here, I have a letter that sums up the whole issue
perfectly.

I am sending you this short note, Mr.
Rocheleau, to tell you this : no to war, no to arms build-up, no to
violence.

I am in favor of humanitarian aid for
Afghanistan. War has never benefited anyone. Our neighbours to the South should
learn tolerance, that if we disagree with them, it does not mean we are against
them.

War always brings misery and
starvation, and children are the ones who pay the price. I was not put on this
Earth to see such misery, but to live an active and peaceful life in harmony
with God and my fellow human beings, to respect the other races and religions,
not to kill or interfere with other people's liberties, trying to make it work
the American way.

What is good for the goose is not
necessarily good for the gander. We are put on this Earth to be different from
one another; life would be boring if we were all alike.

It goes without saying that I am truly happy to read
these testimonies in the House of Commons. Many of them, 160 letters in all,
remind us, by the candor of their authors, that children hit it right on the
head. I believe these letters speak for themselves. I was really impressed by
their quality, sensitivity and interest. When we have doubts about the next
generation, about the meaning of collective life and about the responsibilities
of citizens, reactions to such an event give me hope for the future.

I will read one last testimony that is more blunt. The
writer expresses his ideas in a more straightforward manner. He
says:

The attack where a plane crashed into
the World Trade Center was masterminded by bin Laden who was trying to provoke
us and show us he wants war. But we are stupid enough to wage war against a
third world country.

I think this sums up quite well what the government,
cabinet and the Prime Minister should consider. I am very proud to see that our
youth is in sync with the people of Quebec when it comes to
sensitivity.

The latest polls show it: the concerns of Quebecers are
quite different from those of the rest of Canada. Again that shows that a
sovereign Quebec would have a different voice in the community of nations at
the United Nations and humanity would benefit from it.

(1720)

[English]

Ms. Jean Augustine
(Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for
Leeds--Grenville.

I am pleased to join in the debate on the motion put
forward by the Bloc Quebecois calling upon the federal government to “review
its international aid policy with a view to substantially increasing the funds
available for Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in light of military
intervention in Afghanistan” and to raise the level of ODA to 0.7% as
recommended by the United Nations.

Let me begin by noting that my colleagues on this side
of the House support the motion. The events of September 11 have made it
crystal clear that Canada and the developed world have an obligation to assist
those nations whose populations continue to live in abject poverty. Poverty and
its consequences are threats to the stability and the security of nations and
to those who are directly impacted by it.

As the Prime Minister, the Minister of National
Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and many of the representatives on
this side of the House have stated, we will use not only diplomatic and other
means but also humanitarian assistance in the fight against international
terrorism. It is ever more important to strengthen our resolve to promote
sustainable development in every corner of the developing world.

We must help developing countries to provide their
populations with access to education and health care, promote and protect
rights of children and women, fight HIV-AIDS and eradicate malnutrition, and we
must help and encourage them to develop practices of good governance and
capacity building which are so necessary for building peaceful and stable
democratic societies.

The impoverishment of peoples affects us all. Troubling
social realities in one country today can become a challenge for all of us
tomorrow. CIDA cannot afford to renege on commitments that Canada has made at
UN conferences and in international agreements aimed at addressing issues in
international development. This is even more relevant and true in time of
crisis and war, as in the case of Afghanistan.

I would like to comment briefly on CIDA's assistance to
Afghanistan and on development assistance in the context of
HIV-AIDS.

For over 30 years Canada has been working with its
international partners and civil society to provide assistance to peoples of
the developing world. In recent years, deficit management and fiscal restraints
have reduced Canada's ODA envelope, making it impossible to reach the UN target
of 0.7% of GDP.

As the member of parliament for
Etobicoke--Lakeshore, I,
with so many others who work with me in the Canadian Association of
Parliamentarians on Population and Development, together with all of our NGO
colleagues, have been pressing for Canada to reach that 0.7% of GDP.

However, CIDA and the Government of Canada are taking
steps to turn around this trend and to focus development aid in times of
limited resources on urgent areas. In the last federal budget, ODA funding
increased to the tune of $435 million over three years, providing a clear
signal of a return to long term growth in a generous, measured way. The Prime
Minister is determined to work with other countries in the G-8 to see poverty
reduction and development issues addressed at the next G-8 summit here in
Canada.

CIDA has implemented its “Social Development
Priorities: A Framework for Action”, which aims to strengthen resources devoted
to basic education, health and nutrition, HIV-AIDS and child protection. The
agency's cross-Canada consultations to review the government's international
aid policy and to strengthen aid effectiveness are testament to the
government's commitment to move the development assistance agenda forward.

The situation in Afghanistan is one of urgency. We know
that the country was in need of international assistance prior to the military
interventions. Afghanistan is one of the world's poorest countries, which has
been devastated by drought and civil war.

(1725)

The UNHCR and the international Red Cross have warned
us that ,in light of the present crisis in Afghanistan, they are facing one of
the largest humanitarian crises. Thousands of Afghanis are internally displaced
and are refugees. They are in need of the basic necessities of life. The people
of Afghanistan do not have the protection of a government. They are in this
situation due to no fault of their own.

I am pleased that Canada is one of the nations at the
forefront providing humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. Over the past 10
years CIDA provided close to $160 million which has helped to provide food and
shelter for Afghanis, remove deadly landmines, fight the spread of disease and
educate children, especially girls.

Canada has contributed $16 million to the current
humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. With this funding, we are helping to
provide food, basic health care, adequate shelter and safe water. CIDA is
working in partnership with the world food program and through Canadian NGOs,
such as the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, CARE Canada and the Aga Khan Foundation
Canada, to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches the Afghani
people.

It boggles the mind to listen to members of one
opposition party talk about waste in CIDA and question the need for CIDA's
intervention. Everyone would agree that development assistance helps countries
on the road to self-sufficiency and economic prosperity. It is important that
any type of foreign aid must be sustainable or else it becomes ineffective over
time.

We can ensure that the quality of aid is effective over
time by setting benchmarks and targets that would help to determine progress
and improve conditions. We must put strategies in place that would encourage
countries to meet the needs of their citizens.

Economic prosperity cannot be achieved among developing
countries unless there are strong social policies in place. These policies must
address the root causes of poverty and the systemic reasons that thwart
development.

Encouraging developing countries to meet their own
social priorities is most desirable in providing development assistance.
Forgiving the debt of heavily indebted poor countries is a positive step in
this direction.

I remind members that the Government of Canada was
first among the G-8 partners to commit $40 million to the heavily indebted poor
countries trust fund in 1999 and has followed through in the 2000 budget with
an additional $175 million. As of January 1, 2001 Canada has stopped collecting
debt payments from heavily indebted poor countries. They were able to use debt
relief savings productively and were developing poverty reduction strategies.
This is the way we have to go.

Let me also remind the House that there is a great
emergency on our hands that cannot be ignored. That emergency is the spread of
HIV-AIDS. The Government of Canada, through CIDA, has been responding to the
HIV-AIDS pandemic which threatens to thwart the economic development of
developing countries. Fighting HIV-AIDS is one of CIDA's key development
priorities.

Last June the United Nations drew our attention to the
problem facing the world when it convened a special session on HIV-AIDS and our
Prime Minister and members of the G-8 addressed the matter in Genoa. AIDS is
wiping out decades of hard won development gains. Thousands of children are
being orphaned, threatening the economic survival of nations and communities.
The spread of HIV-AIDS is undermining investments in education and human
resource development.

Canada is working hard in the fight against HIV-AIDS.
The federal government is quadrupling development assistance funding for
HIV-AIDS through CIDA's HIV-AIDS action plan. We are at a turning point in the
fight against this terrible disease. Now is the time for a substantive and
renewed commitment from the entire global community and Canada must be there.
Canada is moving forward in its aggressive efforts to address this pandemic
through international co-operation.

We therefore support today's motion because, while
Canadians can be proud of their country's support for sustainable development,
poverty reduction and education of children, it is clear that we can do
more.

(1730)

Our communities expect us to do more. Our communities
expect us to reach 0.7% of GDP. I support the motion at this time and ask
colleagues from all sides of the House to focus on our responsibility to the
rest of the world. As Canadians, we are expected to stand up and be
counted.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a rather unusual
situation as a politician because I can actually speak with some knowledge on
this issue.

I congratulate the House for entertaining this motion
because we have had approximately 45 to 50 hours of debate in the House dealing
specifically with the coalition initiative against terrorism. That is an
important item that needs to be discussed. However today's motion brings a
semblance of balance to the debate.

If our actions are targeted toward the terrorists, it
is incumbent on the partners in the coalition to make sure that they are there
on the ground to make sure the civilians in those countries understand not only
by language but by action that this is what we intend to do.

I congratulate my colleague from
Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay for sponsoring this motion. I am comforted that
someone at that tender age takes this issue seriously because it is an
extremely serious issue. Global poverty is something that we must come to grips
with sooner or later. The sooner we do it, the easier the solution will be on
everybody.

The reason I prefaced my comments by saying I thought I
could speak to this issue is that I was a teacher in my former life and spent a
number of years overseas on international projects that CIDA funded. I will
target my remarks to those experiences because I get concerned when I hear
criticisms about Canada's international development aid policy. I believe that
with the experiences I have had I have a right to address some of those
misconceptions.

I spent two years on a project in Ethiopia in the
1980s. To bring credibility to my argument, the Liberals were not in power at
the time. The development staff on the ground and the embassy personnel were of
the highest quality in terms of making sure that Canadian taxpayer money was
spent efficiently and in a manner consistent with the objectives and the values
underscored in CIDA's documents.

One of the issues that we focus on in international aid
as Canadians is the notion of women and development. We have learned that if we
are to get at the root causes of poverty, treating the causes as opposed to the
symptoms, we must ensure that the women in the country are engaged in any
solution that is being proposed. That is an oversimplification, but money spent
to increase the capacity of women in countries is money that manifests itself
in a higher standard of living for children. Canada makes sure that the
projects it undertakes address the issue of women and development. I encourage
the government to continue to make that important intervention.

One of the things that struck me in Ethiopia was that a
lot of the aid was very politicized. Ethiopia is a strategically located
country. Over the years it was important to this country or that country and a
lot of money went to Ethiopia. I saw $80,000 tractors at the side of the road
because there was no gasoline. One of the things that Canadian aid focuses on
is sustainability. We have to be able to sustain development otherwise when the
aid runs out the project runs out.

One of the most successful projects I saw was a German
one. It developed a very simple prototype for an ox pulled cart based on the
rear wheel assembly of a Volkswagen bug because there were thousands of these
cars littering the landscape. These were built by the Cubans, interestingly
enough. There were no spare parts and no gasoline to run these cars. Sometimes
low technology must be used that matches the technology of the country.

Before I leave Africa, one of the proudest moments I
had was when I went to one of the water wells and saw it identified as a
Canadian project. Another aspect of Canadian development aid relating to the
root causes of health is clean water.

(1735)

Every Canadian can be extremely proud of the fact that
we have drilled literally thousands of wells and maintained and trained local
personnel to maintain clean water supplies so that the children who drink the
water are getting clean water and are not getting viruses and other things from
their water which in most cases would end up killing them.

I then spent three years on a CIDA project in Hungary.
This was a different situation because one of the things that happened in that
country after the fall of the communist economic system was that lawyers
previously employed by the state were essentially told to hang out a shingle
and make a living. The Canadian government, through CIDA, got involved in
training lawyers, and one might ask what would be the reason for that? The
reason quite simply was that if we were to open up eastern Europe as a
potential market for Canadian companies, then we needed a system and a legal
framework there that would minimize risk to Canadian companies.

When I started working on that project I thought it was
a tremendously useful strategy that the Canadian government had undertaken.
Someone mentioned earlier a simple phrase that rings true: the Canadian
development assistance strategy is one where we would rather teach someone to
fish as opposed to giving them a fish. As for people who try to suggest in my
presence that Canadian foreign aid is just buckets of cash being thrown around
with no accountability, I can tell members that those people have had no
experience with foreign aid projects, because the accountability measures and
processes that are in place are extremely tough.

We focus on prevention. We focus on capacity building.
We focus on making sure that women are included in these development projects
because that speaks to their sustainability. We are very concerned when looking
at the root causes of poverty. One of the issues that Ethiopia faced was that
with such dire poverty any cooking going on was being done through cutting down
trees for fuel. The deforestation of the area around the city when the big
rains would come in August was causing tremendous problems with what arid or
tillable land was left. It was Canadian engineers who went over and started
setting up systems of pumps for irrigation and workings and having agricultural
workers out in the field talking to people about the importance of not engaging
in that kind of activity.

As a final point I would also like to say that in my
personal experience one of the other advantages to international assistance is
that the people who are engaged in it learn just as much as the people at the
other end. One of the things that Canada has been criticized for is that we are
kind of an island within ourselves and it is very difficult for Canadians to
travel. International assistance experiences for students, exchange programs
between various universities and faculty exchange programs which CIDA funds are
extremely beneficial, not only to the country we are working with but also to
the Canadians who participate in these projects.

I will conclude with that point, but to underscore it I
want to say that Canadians can be extremely proud, not only of the people we
have employed in our international development agencies but also of the
direction, the scale and scope of these projects. I absolutely agree with the
motion from the Bloc. It is very timely. It is a matter of ramping up to that
figure, which is also contingent on the growth of the economy. That is one of
the downsides to using GDP as a measure, but I think there is a definite
payback for engaging in these types of activities. I would suggest that in
terms of getting a bang for our buck, Canada is one of the leading countries in
making sure that the money is spent both efficiently and effectively. We can
all be very proud of that.

(1740)

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my colleague has just spoken of pride and
the effectiveness of the current aid programs.

Nobody can be against virtue, but I have a question for
him concerning today's debate. Speaking of pride, is the hon. member proud that
Canada ranks 17th out of 22 donor countries?

Hon. members will understand that this is very damaging
for Canada's reputation. Does the hon. member believe that the finance minister
will pay heed to this motion and, in his next budget, earmark additional funds
for international cooperation?

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan:
Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is not suggesting that
we as Canadians are not proud of the efforts of our international development
agencies. It is contingent upon all of us to take steps forward on this
file.

The purpose of my speech was primarily aimed at some of
the people who today tried to criticize the policies of Canada as somehow being
spendthrift, out of control and a waste of money. That is not the case at all.
If the hon. member is suggesting that we need to increase our efforts in this
area, I agree. However I would also suggest to him that that has to be a
non-partisan effort. Anybody who feels that way has to work together to try to
accomplish that.

We can see from today's debate that sometimes we are up
against some pretty harsh critics. Sometimes we are up against people who have
convinced themselves that international development aid is what we want and we
kick the crumbs to some other country. I would suggest that there are
tremendous opportunities. A rising tide tends to lift all vessels.

I know from the past speeches of the hon. member and
his gestures in the House that he feels very strongly about this issue. I look
forward to working with him to move this item forward.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé
(Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is in my capacity as Bloc Quebecois
member on the Subcommittee on Human Rights that I am taking part in this
debate, which is closely related to human rights.

In my opinion, it is always good to reread the motion
by my colleague for Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay:

That this House call upon the
government to review its international aid policy with a view to substantially
increasing the funds available for Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in
the context of the military interventions in Afghanistan, and to increasing the
level of its aid for development to 0.7% of GDP, as recommended by the United
Nations.

First, I wish to commend the hon. young member for
Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay who proposed this motion. I have known him for five
years and I think this is very representative of the work he has been doing so
far. This hon. member speaks with generosity and always for the people in his
riding.

I also appreciated the approach of our colleague from
Trois-Rivières, who presented here in parliament the thoughts of students, of
young people about this whole issue as well as the questions they are asking
themselves.

A few weeks ago I was invited by a secondary 5 class
and an Amnesty International group at a high school. Young people are very
concerned about the current crisis. Everyone is concerned, including young
people. They are very interested in this issue and they are very worried. The
comments made by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay accurately
reflect the feelings of the members of his generation. I continued my
consultation with teachers and many other people.

This morning, the results of a poll--I will not go into
the details--indicated that Quebecers see the Afghan conflict from a slightly
different perspective than other Canadians do. I am not surprised.

Let me be clear. We supported a response, a reaction by
the Americans, under the aegis of the UN, to punish those responsible for the
September 11 attacks and their accomplices. I think we should be clear on
this.

All this brings us to the source of the problem. In my
opinion, the growing gap between poor and rich countries is at the root of this
problem. We must be careful not to let the current conflict degenerate and
become a terrible ordeal for civilians, not only in Afghanistan, but also
elsewhere in the region, and even at home. A victim, whether in the United
States or in Afghanistan, is a victim nonetheless. We must never forget that.

The reason I reread the motion earlier is precisely
because it puts us in the context of the current crisis. Let us not forget it.
Of course the pre-September 11 humanitarian assistance is an altogether
different issue but there are people and NGOs who are meeting. They were even
consulted by the minister. They told her as recently as September 6, before the
attacks, that they wondered about the international humanitarian assistance
provided by the Canadian government. They felt that the aid provided was
increasingly governed by a commercial or economical framework or vision.

Coming back to Afghanistan for example, this country
has been suffering the horrors of wars for at least 20 years. People do not
know where to go so they keep moving. Even before September 11 this country had
the greatest numbers of refugees of all, with over 2.5 million people
displaced.

(1745)

Since September 11 at least 500,000 more people have
been internally displaced or have fled to neighbouring countries to be safe.
They have to protect themselves not only from the Taliban but also from the
bombings. More and more misfires are reported. A victim, whether in Afghanistan
or anywhere else in the world, remains a victim.

I was sitting in my office this afternoon getting ready
for my speech when I overheard some MPs talking. I do not want to tell you who
they were but I can tell you that what they said worried me somewhat. Members
from the other side were saying that we could perhaps question the
international and humanitarian aid to which Canada currently contributes. As if
it were very significant.

One of the problems is that Canada's international
assistance is dwindling. At 0.25%, it is far from the 0.7% target. It is
actually less than half what former Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson
had proposed for all countries. At the time, OECD countries had agreed to move
in that direction but since the Liberals took office, we have been moving in
the opposite direction, with declining assistance. Some members are wondering
if we should continue in that direction while others suggest it is not
worthwhile.

I am in favour of the most urgent humanitarian aid. Let
us take for example a person whose life is in danger, whose health is
threatened or who is hungry. Maslow taught us that when primary needs are not
satisfied is not the time to consider development projects. How can a person
think of development projects when his life or the lives of his children or his
neighbours are in danger?

Since I am a member of the Standing Committee on Human
Rights, I would like to read once again a few sections of the charter of human
rights that was adopted by the UN more than 50 years ago. It is not asking too
much to read this again.

Article 1 says, and I quote:

All human beings are born free and
equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and
should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

We must ask ourselves whether there is still a spirit
of brotherhood in this conflict. There are 30 articles in the charter. For
example, Article 3 states:

Everyone has the right to
life--

This is essential when we are threatened with death by
bombs or by people pursuing us. I go on:

--liberty and security of
person.

Article 13 says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of
movement and residence within the borders of each state.

When people are forced to flee their residences, I do
not think they do it freely. They do it to save their lives. When people cross
borders they do it because they are threatened.

Article 14 says this:

Everyone has the right to seek and to
enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

It is a right. People are given that right, but they
also need food and medical care.

Article 22 says this:

Everyone, as a member of society, has
the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national
effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization
and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights
indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his
personality.

An underdeveloped country may not have the same ability
to provide foreign aid as another country.

Article 25 says this:

Everyone has the right to a standard
of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family,
including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social
services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness,
disability...or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his
control.

I wanted to remind members of that. Human rights are
fundamental but too often we have a tendency to forget that. We can ask
ourselves why. Yes, bilateral aid from Canada or any other country must be
conditional on respect for human rights.

(1750)

This is the meaning of the motion and it is in this
context that the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay
is presenting the motion. International aid would be sent out through the UN,
the international organizations of the UN, the UN High Commission for Refugees
and international agencies accredited by the UN, therefore, we could help the
countries within an independent framework.

Over the weekend I discussed the issue with many people
of all ages in my riding. This is what I came out with. Why would Canada not
contribute as much to humanitarian aid, and we are talking about 0.7%, as it
contributes to the military for participation in the offensive? We do not
disagree with offensive action but we should always give as much to build and
to save lives as we give to destroy a country.

(1755)

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will take only two or three moments. It
might seem a bit out of the ordinary for a minister to rise during questions
and comments. Usually a minister rises for a speech or to state a government
position.

But it is certainly not the case today. I do not intend
to state any policy but I do wish to take part in this exchange with
colleagues, and I do so with pleasure.

I listened to speeches in the House from my seat and a
bit earlier today from my office. On the whole, I commend all members in the
House for the excellent quality of their speeches today. I did not agree with
all that was said but I think most of the debate was very interesting.

Without criticizing other debates, I must say that
today's debate was more interesting and probably less partisan than some other
opposition day debate, if I may say so.

Where I am perhaps less in agreement with the member
who just spoke is with the comparison he made at the end of his speech. He
tried somewhat to make a comparison between the need for a state to protect its
citizens and, of course, the duty of a state to contribute to foreign
aid.

This is like comparing apples with oranges and it is
impossible to do so in all cases. I believe we have a duty as a society to
protect citizens against terrorist acts and to take every action possible. I
want to dissociate all this from our contribution to international development
aid.

I was also a minister of International cooperation, a
role that I loved. I travelled to 25 or 30 African countries and to many South
American countries. I spent quite some time in Haiti. Our country has done a
lot in several parts of the world.

I find it rather interesting to note that today in
China, generally speaking, people know two things about Canada: they know of
Dr. Bethune and of CIDA. Those are the two things the Chinese know about
Canada.

CIDA, or ACDI as it is known in French, is well known
but it is the English acronym that is known in China, since of course when a
foreign language is spoken in China usually it is not French but
English.

I would not likeCanadians in general think we have the
right to draw a comparison between our duty to protect our citizens, which is
our collective duty, and the duty to invest in development aid.

I will conclude by dissociating myself from
those--which was not the case of the last speech, of course, nor the case of
the last few speeches I heard--who think, wrongly, that we do not have the duty
to offer a helping hand to other human beings who need us. We have such a duty.
I do not know if that can be considered generosity. It is a duty for all of us.
I think it is also our duty, as members of parliament, to make the population
aware of this duty.

I wanted to share those feelings with my
colleagues.

Mr. Antoine Dubé:
Mr. Speaker, concerning the last words of the
government House leader, I think that he was absolutely right when he said that
it was a matter of rights. Rights, duties and responsibilities go hand in hand.
That is why I was drawingattention to some clauses in the United Nations
charter of rights.

However, I want simply to reply by saying that, when I
made the comparison I was merely referring to what I and most of the members
were hearing when we went back to our ridings on the weekends. It was the
conclusion that I drew from what these people told me during the weekend when
they said that we have to give as much importance to humanitarian aid as to the
means necessary to ensure the security of Canadians and Quebecers.

Meanwhile, what should be considered now is the
possibility of making a financial contribution together with sending a military
force to punish the suspected terrorists. I think we have to put the matter
back into its context.

I am very happy the government House leader, now that
he is aware of the issue, has thought it was sufficiently important to
intervene personally in the debate, which is not his custom. I want to thank
him for that and it bodes very well for tomorrow evening's vote. I hope he will
persuade all the other hon. members who are a little less aware of the issue to
vote in favour of the motion of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay.

(1800)

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay
(Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is very important for me to participate
in today's debate on the motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member
for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay. The motion reads as follows:

That this House calls upon the
government to review its international aid policy with a view to substantially
increasing the funds available for Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in
the context of the military interventions in Afghanistan, and to increasing the
level of its aid for development to 0.7% of GDP, as recommended by the United
Nations.

In a remark made earlier this afternoon, a member
seemed to wonder where this famous 0.7% came from. Why do we use that number?
Why was it included in the motion?

This figure was set by the United Nations. My colleague
for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière reminded us that this
discussion began in 1959. Lester B. Pearson, who was then our ambassador to the
United Nations, made this suggestion to the organization. The idea made its way
through all sorts of obstacles, it was discussed, and all kinds of calculations
were made. In 1975, there was a new attempt to implement the 1959 decision.
Ultimately, the final decision was made in the 1990s, so that rich countries
could contribute to the development of mainly third world countries.

It is important that we get involved in development
because, collectively, we are responsible for what is happening out there. We
would all like wealth to be shared better. We all realize that we were lucky to
be born in a country that has never been affected by famine, war, despair and
all the terrible things that have been happening elsewhere.

Our involvement is also important because aid to
developing countries is crucial. This contribution is an integral part of our
openness to the world and it is an extremely effective tool against
poverty.

Terrorists have reasons to do what they do. We speak of
the U.S. response to what we could perhaps call another kind of response. For
some, what happened on September 11 was a response to what they were living, to
what they were unsatisfied with, to the reason they were not happy. So this is
a response to a response to a response. When will this ever end?

My young colleague proposed an extremely important
motion. Another speaker reminded us earlier that several countries are still
far from making the contribution asked by the UN. As far as I know, it seems
from the documents I read that only five countries have so far accepted to make
that contribution, that is, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and
Luxembourg.

None of these countries are part of the G-7. Thus, none
of them are among the main industrialized countries.

(1805)

And yet, they have managed to give between 0.7%, for
Luxembourg, and 1.06%, for Denmark. If we are aware of the fact that it is
important to share that wealth, if we want to put an end to starvation, to
extreme poverty and to violence, it is probably a good idea to try, as quickly
as possible, to fulfill this commitment that was made many years ago.

Looking at the refugee situation in Afghanistan,
somebody else was saying that there was short term action being taken. Of
course, Afghanistan is a major concern at the present time, but we also have to
think about the long term.

There are many countries where action is required:
Palestine, Sudan, other countries in Africa and South America, but what
concerns us most at present is the situation in Afghanistan. We were upset to
learn that there have been mistakes, that eight children were killed Saturday
night. I do not think anybody is rejoicing over that. However, this does not
stop us from considering that the response was legitimate. But now, we have to
ask ourselves what we can do to help these people.

I have read articles of European magazines such as
Le Nouvel Observateur, Le Point or l'Express. NGOs are
very unhappy about the fact that the United States has engaged in military
action and humanitarian action at the same time. Those are two major operations
that are normally separate, not as much in time since aid must be forwarded to
people anyway, but more from the point of view of natural helpers. NGOs are the
ones that normally provide humanitarian aid.

If the war ended tomorrow, we would still need to give
humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, which has been at war for 22 years and has
gone through a three year drought. When a drought lasts for three years, it is
not easy to grow anything.

During a program I was listening to recently, it was
mentioned that NGOs, having been unable to enter Afghanistan as easily as
before, could not bring the necessary seeds for next year's harvest. Because of
that, the situation in Afghanistan will get even worse.

It must be understood that humanitarian aid in
Afghanistan is vitally important at this time and that it will remain so in the
future. According to the United Nations' estimates, seven million people will
need aid, which is about one third of the country's population. The country
will need to be rebuilt. Different kinds of support will have to be put in
place.

We will have to rebuild what the bombs will have
demolished. We will have to remove all mines in that country. Apparently, this
will take the whole next century.

What seems more important to me is what a former
president of Médecins sans frontières said, and I quote:

Modern humanitarian aid developed by
breaking loose from politics. Enslaving it to the logic of states would be a
step backward.

I invite Canada to play a leadership role in this field
so that we can offer our aid, give food, not any food but food that conforms to
these people's eating habits. What the people of Afghanistan now need is wheat,
oil and sugar, and not biscuits, peanut butter or jam.

(1810)

That is not what they need today but that is what is
being air dropped to them, putting their life in danger because they have to
run through minefields to get the famous yellow packages.

[English]

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of members of
the House in allowing me to say a few things before the debate wraps
up.

Members of the Canadian Alliance are concerned about
the situation in Afghanistan. The situation there is as dire as it is in many
countries around the world. We have seen people in many countries torn apart by
war, famine and poverty. There are many situations that are completely
untenable. There will always be a need for humanitarian aid. That is a sad
fact. We will always have, I am sorry to say, famine, poverty and those kinds
of things in the world. There will always be a need for humanitarian aid. There
is no question about it.

Where would we get a figure like 0.7% of GDP? Where
does that number come from? It seems it was drawn out of thin air. What is the
basis for that number? In Canada's case this would mean an increase in foreign
aid of $5 billion a year. That is a tremendous amount of money. It comes at a
time when we already have big demands for new spending to strengthen our
military, hire more people to screen our borders and hire more people at CSIS.
All these are demands on the treasury.

The UN has asked for $584 million U.S. or about $900
million Canadian to help with the problems in Afghanistan. It is pretty clear
that other countries would be expected to contribute. The money is not all for
Afghanistan, obviously. However even if we had all that money we could not help
Afghanistan right now because the country is torn apart by war.

We could help some of the people who make it to
Pakistan. Maybe we could help in the northern part of Afghanistan. There are
refugee camps on the border with Turkmenistan and other places. The situation
in those places is not good. In one refugee camp last year I read that when it
turned cold it dropped to 25° below zero and 150 people froze to
death.

There is no question that we can help, but we could not
possibly spend all that money right now in Afghanistan. The country is so
ripped apart by war that we would not be able to help a lot of the people
behind enemy lines. There is no way we can help all those people,
unfortunately.

I will wrap up by asking my colleague one final
question. Canada imposes tariffs on textiles and food to less developed
countries like Afghanistan. Does my colleague think that is an appropriate
policy given the level of poverty that countries like Afghanistan and others
face?

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay:
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for my colleague
from Medicine Hat to know that the task of finding out how to help developing
countries was given to a fully independent committee established in 1959 under
the aegis of the World bank.

Experts were asked to study how much money was needed,
for how many years, and what would be the end results if x amount of
money was given over a period of 20 years.

Around 1990 they concluded that if we gave 0.7% of our
GDP, we could provide enough help to developing countries break free from
chronic poverty.

Fighting against poverty is a way of working against
terrorism. When we ask the Canadian government to increase its participation,
we are saying “Give us an idea of the time needed to reach the 0.7% level. We
are not expecting that all the billions of dollars will suddenly flow into
Afghanistan. The needs are so great all over the world that we will have to
ensure a fair distribution of these amounts according to the best of our
knowledge”.

(1815)

The Deputy Speaker:
It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier
today, all questions necessary to dispose of the business of supply are deemed
put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, October
30, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[English]

It being 6.17 p.m. the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).